> > > # 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..
Yes. Another way to phrase it is that every addr object has a name which the system can often auto-generate, but not in the case of tunnels. (I'm still a bit confused by the name in the case of non-tunnel numeric addresses -- is the /n part of the auto-generated name or not?) -- meem
