On 03/23/09 14:31, Sebastien Roy wrote: > On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 14:14 -0400, Girish Moodalbail wrote: > >>> Also along the same lines, the -f option for the *-prop subcommands >>> shouldn't be necessary. >>> >>> >> The idea here is, instead of having separate tunable for v4 or v6 (read >> ip_forwarding or ip6_forwarding) we could specify the -f flag for 'ipadm >> set-prop' to identify which 'ill' the property needs to be specified. >> > > The argument that is being made is that "ill" is an implementation > detail that has leaked into the administrative model and confused people > who are familiar with other operating systems (e.g. BSD and Linux). > > Are you saying that there will be a single IP interface, but that there > will be multiple properties with the same name associated with that > interface?
No there will be single property which, based on supplied "-f" value, will be applied to all v4 interfaces or all v6 interfaces. Because today some property value need to be different for v4 and v6. There is no exposure of 'ill' here right? Further even if I treat an IP interface as a single administrative object, I need to specify to which protocol the property needs to be applied, right? That will be done through "-f" flag. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/brussels-dev/attachments/20090323/64c93320/attachment.html>
