On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 13:01 -0700, Peter Memishian wrote: > > > I'm not arguing for an "-f" option, just that I'd expect someone to create > > > an IP interface before they can place it into an IPMP group -- and when > > > they create that interface, there should be no need to configure it with > > > an IP address (under the hood, it will need a 0.0.0.0 address based on > the > > > requirements of the IP module itself, but it'd be nice if the > > > administrator didn't see that). > > > > Right, that's what I'd expect. The plumbing of the 0.0.0.0 address is > > an implementation detail that need not be exposed to the administrative > > interface. > > Yes. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I thought you said that there was > no need to plumb an IP interface without an IP address. As illustrated > above, there is a need.
Sure; the general idea being that there doesn't seem to be an actual requirement that an IP interface be plumbed up front as a result of "create-interface". The requirement of interface plumbing is implementation-specific, coming from the implementation of adding an address, configuring an IPMP group, or whatever else needs IP interface plumbing. -Seb
