On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 14:51 -0400, Girish Moodalbail wrote: > On 03/23/09 14:31, Sebastien Roy wrote: > > 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?
In the vocabulary you're using, there is an implicit reference to "ill". The very statements "v4 interface" and "v6 interface" refer to "ill"s. I think it's counter-productive to refer to such "interfaces", as they're implementation constructs in the IP module that are also part of the ifconfig administrative model we're trying to ditch. A different way to describe the model you're implementing might be that an interface property can apply to multiple protocols. The protocols to which it is applied is specified by a set-prop option. A secondary question is, then, why do you have separate -m and -f options? Aren't IPv4 and IPv6 just separate protocols that could be disambiguated with -m instead of a separate -f? > 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. Right, but my question was, how can I tell which protocol a given property applies to in the show-prop output? -Seb
