On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 11:28 -0400, Girish M G wrote:
> We are inviting everyone involved with networking to review the design
> document for Brussels Phase II aka /ipadm(1M). /The document is here:
>
> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/brussels/files/brussels2.pdf
It doesn't make sense to me to carry forward the concept of separate
IPv4 and IPv6 interfaces. I'm referring to the usage of
create-interface and modify-interface:
# ipadm {create,modify}-interface [-t] [-f {inet, inet6}] \
[-if6_intf_id=<IPv6 Interface ID>] \
[-O <interface sub-options>] <interface>
Conceptually, I add addresses of a particular address family to an
interface. One should be able to add or remove addresses of either
family to a single IP interface.
To that end, the IPv6 interface ID doesn't belong here IMO. This feels
like an IP interface property that has a default value and that is
settable through something like "ipadm set-prop -p interface-id=::1
net0".
Also along the same lines, the -f option for the *-prop subcommands
shouldn't be necessary.
-Seb
