sowmini.varadhan at sun.com wrote:
> SCF isn't being discarded either. There are many models on the table
> between nwam, clearview, vrrp, Brussels, ... for dealing with an
> "smf networking" service- I think Clearview, for example, has a
> long-term desirable goal of treating each interface as an SMF service.
> The plan is that when the design of the smf service gels out
> to fit the needs of all the related projects, then we can move
> all the *.conf files into the appropriate smf repository.
Do we know how long time it might take for that to gel?
If it takes long, would it be useful to consider SCF as just a
repository and not worrying about how things are split into multiple
instances, or does that just make it more complex?
The reason I'm asking is that we appear to have an immediate problem (or
problems) relating to the repository, thus using SCF in a "flat" way
might potentially help. By this I mean a single service
(physical:default or datalink-management:default) would have a bunch of
properties whose names are based on the ifname/datalink name.
Erik
