Sowmini.Varadhan at Sun.COM wrote: > On (08/02/09 09:35), Darren Reed wrote: >>> "@" bge0 at foo (or even foo at bge0) could be confused with the user at >>> host >>> context >>> >> huh? >> are you saying I might confuse "ping bge0 at sowmini" with an email address? >> or something else? > > I'm saying that the "@" has special meaning in the context of > email addrs, or even rsh/ssh. I don't know if that creates issues > for some tools. > > For example, I can do "ssh root at 127.0.0.1" or "ssh admin1 at 127.0.0.1". > Of course, ipadm labels are private to ipadm, and are not going to be > supported by ssh's CLI,
Quite likely because ssh doesn't expect to see network interface names or details relating to them on its command line. > but since we entered this discussion about > conflicts with ipfilter's use of "/", then we'd have to make sure that > the "@", if used, would not create similar problems. And do you think those labels would stay private forever? Either customers or other engineers and other proejcts will follow and want to use them in ways that you never imagined. To put it differently, I'm pretty sure that whatever label name space or syntax you choose to use, there will be an RFE (sooner or later) to have it function in an expected way with ipfilter. btw, since UUCP bang paths are now redundant, you could use "!"... And what ever is wrong with using "+"? Do we always need to be negative? Darren
