On 10/30/08 13:11, Sowmini.Varadhan at Sun.COM wrote: > On (10/30/08 13:00), Darren Reed wrote: > >> If that is the case then "ipadm" is named incorrectly. >> netadm/transadm or ipadm/tcpadm/udpadm/... >> >> > > I don't want to get too caught up in the nomenclature here, > but my own initial instinct, like Jim's, was to club all > of it under ipadm. However, as becomes evident with property > management in comparison with the other commands considered, > it *is* true that the transport layer does not usually > target IP interfaces, just as the IP layer does not target > transport layer ports. It was for this reason that I split > the tools into "ipadm" (or "netadm" or "l3adm"??) and > transadm (or "xadm" or "ulpadm" or "l4adm"??). > > but what do we want to see these tools doing? Any comments > about the suggested features? >
If you get the architecture for the command(s) right then it is a straightforward exercise to add new protocols at either layer. It would hopefully not replace any existing binaries. Rather than design the tools to manage exactly what we have now, think about how you would design them if we had protocols that are not ip/tcp/udp and you wanted to added them. The nomenclature, or rather, the naming, is important here as it id descriptive of the architecture you want to pursue. But most importantly, you need to be consistent. Darren -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/brussels-dev/attachments/20081030/f9952e4b/attachment.html>
