On (07/08/09 18:49), Peter Memishian wrote: > > > Why? I can just as easily create a /etc/nodename that has "net0:1" > > and boot my machine to respond with > > > > # hostname > > net0:1
I can see someone setting their hostname to something like net0 or cetus5. But one would imagine that they would then not want to rename their link to net0 (or cetus5) as well. In the same way, I don't think a reasonable user would want to use a hostname of "myhost" and also call that interface address of myhost. > I agree that's an advantage but I still think that something that looks > like a hostname but is actually a new object namespace is going to cause > confusion unless there is something that clearly differentiates it. The expected usage is something like # ipadm create-addr -i net5 -a 1.2.3.4/24 net5addr with the /etc/hosts stuff only being used as a pnemonic for numeric addresses (as Jim had mentioned in PSARC comments). What I'm trying to say is that with vanity naming of any sort, one can do strange things like # dladm rename-link bge0 nge0 but that's not advisable. Also, if you really did do # ipadm create-addr -i net0 -a cetus5 cetus5 with cetus5 mapping to something like 1.2.3.4, when you do # ipadm delete-addr cetus5 you'd want to delete 1.2.3.4 (and not the current address in /etc/hosts), right? So, in some sense, isn't the oddity only in the tautology used in the create-addr command (which is only required so that we don't have to mandate a label in some cases and use a default in others)? --Sowmini
