so do we all concur on the proposal below?
--Sowmini
On (07/19/09 07:49), Sowmini.Varadhan at Sun.COM wrote:
>
> I don't think that thrusting some system-generated
> quasi-logical-interface-name
> like bge0/1001 upon the audience is a good idea either.. stepping back a bit,
>
> 1. the simplest way to identify a static address (on a non-point-to-point
> interface) is by the value of the address itsef, e.g., bge0/1.2.3.4
>
> 2. it's the point-to-point, and non-static (i.e., dhcp and ipv6 addrconf)
> addresses that could use a "label" mnemonic to make them easier to
> identify from the command line
>
> 3. we want to avoid conflicts with the namespace used by hostname resolvers
> or the kernel's logical interfaces.
>
> So why don't we just require a label to be supplied for the cases identified
> in #2, and in those cases, if the label conflicts with a hostname,
> we return an error ("pick another label"). I don't think people would
> intuitively want to pick an entry that's also resolved as a hostname for
> these address types anyway.
>
> For static addresses on non-point-to-point interfaces, the "label" is
> just <interface>/<numeric address>. (Yes, this is clumsy for IPv6,
> but other than getting into resolver-soups, I don't see a solution for
> that.)
>
> --Sowmini
>
> _______________________________________________
> brussels-dev mailing list
> brussels-dev at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/brussels-dev
