> > # ipadm create-addr -i net0 10.1.2.3 > or > # ipadm create-addr -i net0 myhostaddr > > where "myhostaddr" would be resolved through /etc/hosts and then > becomes the 'label' for subsequent delete-address/set-addrprop commands.
So with that syntax would I need to have a name for the IP address in my name service to use a non-numeric label? Or can I also specify an optional label regardless? If it's the latter, I would've expected a syntax more like: # ipadm create-addr -i net0 -a 10.1.2.3/24 a ... where `a' could be omitted if I was willing to accept 10.1.2.3/24 as the label. > i.e., if no '-l' is specified, the label becomes the same as the interface > address(es). Alternatively, we could have: > > # ipadm create-addr -i net0 -s <myaddr> -d <otheraddr> <label> This seems structurally reasonable but having entirely different command-line options for tunnels seems a little unfortunate. Another possibility would be to specify both addresses together as <src>,<dst> e.g.: # ipadm create-addr -i net0 -a 10.1.2.3/32,10.1.2.4/32 a This has the benefit of being a straightforard extension of the standard syntax, but the drawback of being alien on first inspection. > e.g., > # ipadm create-addr --i net0 -s mytunaddr -d othertunaddr tunaddr > # ipadm create-addr -i net0 -s myhostaddr > > but in both cases, if a "label" is not specified for the > tunnel we'd have to generate a vanity name for the address, which, > if we wanted to be consistent with the non-pointotpoint usage, would have > to be "mytunaddr othertunaddr". Having a label like that seems unworkable. Why not just require that a label be specified in such a situation? -- meem
