On 19/07/09 04:49 AM, Sowmini.Varadhan at Sun.COM wrote:
>>  > but why do we need to auto-assign? Why can't we mandate that the 
>>  > object provided to "create-addr" must be of the form <interface>/<string>,
>>  > where <string> is constructed from some well-defined set of chars (e.g.,
>>  > [a-z][A-Z][0-9]'-')
>>     
>
> On (07/17/09 13:45), Peter Memishian wrote:
>   
>> Because then we're back in the soup of forcing the administrator to name
>> all their address objects with names that are not hostnames.  Yes, the
>> "<ifname>/" prefix helps but I would expect that most administrators are
>> still going to use the hostname.  Further, given that these objects are
>> not necessarily tied to any specific address (e.g, in the case of
>> non-static addresses), it's nice to have a facility in the system for
>> naming them automatically.
>>     
>
> 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.
>   

The only way to achieve (3) is for the namespace to be composed of names
that do not use the ASCII alphabet.

Further, I'd recommend using a different separator than "/", especially if
there is a number. Seeing "bge0/3" written is more likely to conjure up
thoughts in people's heads of the netmask being 0xe0000000.

In addition, any tool (such as ipfilter) that allows you to use 
"<nic>/<something>"
would be instantly incompatible with this design.

So, at the very least you need a new separator.

Darren

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/brussels-dev/attachments/20090731/37282e10/attachment.html>

Reply via email to