On (07/02/09 23:41), Peter Memishian wrote: > > # 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?
As things stand in the prototype today, yes, but we are trying to move toward the more user-friendly: > 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. Ok > > # 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 but it seems like tunnels end up being more/less different, no matter what command line we go with. For example, even with: > # ipadm create-addr -i net0 -a 10.1.2.3/32,10.1.2.4/32 a (which sounds reasonable to me), there's no easy way to generate an intuitive default label/vanity-name (AI: find a better term for this- addr_name? addr_tag?) for the tunnel address pair so that we end up with > > 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? i.e. the label/vanity-name becomes mandatory for tunnels, optional for non-pointopoint.. --Sowmini
