On 03/26/09 15:58, Sebastien Roy wrote: > On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 15:41 -0400, Girish Moodalbail wrote: > >> On 03/26/09 11:43, Sowmini.Varadhan at Sun.COM wrote: >> >>> To summarize, >>> >>> the model being proposed is >>> >>> - ipadm create-interface will only create a "virtual object" with >>> no underlying plumbing done at the time.. >>> >>> - ipadm add-address will plumb as needed. >>> >>> IPv6: turnin gon ADDRCONF (and/or dhcpv6) >>> >>> >> Well with the above model bringing up an IPv6 interface (with neighbor >> discovery and dhcpv6) would now need two commands. First use ipadm >> create-interface and then ipadm add-address. This is highly undesirable >> for an end user configuring a system for IPv6 (given that 'ifconfig' did >> it one go). >> >> The better thing to do is to always "plumb" both IPv4 and IPv6 with >> 'ipadm create-interface'. If there is someone who does not like this >> then he could use an "optional [-f]" flag to specify what interface he >> needs. >> > > Sure, or an interface property. I'm wondering why you believe that a > high-level create-interface flag is preferable to an "ipv4-only" or > "ipv6-only" property Nothing extraordinary, just that it's consistent with various other commands in networking, which uses "-f" to mean address family. If property makes more sense, then sure, property it will be.
thanks ~Girish -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/brussels-dev/attachments/20090326/4605e1fd/attachment.html>
