sowmini.varadhan at sun.com wrote:
> However, the idea was to have an administrative interface that was
> approximately one per OSI layer, and the motivation was that these
> interfaces, at least for the TCP/IP family of protocols, would
> operate on a similar set of objects.
Oops, but we already have soconfig, not soadm... What
do we do ;-}
> I'd like to hear other thoughts around this. If we have tcpadm and udpadm,
> then what about sctpadm, dhcpadm and all the other protocols? Where
> do we stop the explosion?
I guess ipadm is just fine for handling IP and its
friends in kernel. I don't think one will run TCP
on top of network layer other than IP, right? They
are so tightly coupled together that it makes sense
to use the same admin command to configure them. I
think it is more admin friendly. And doesn't this
also make it easy for the CLI to detect possible config
inconsistencies between IP and its friends?
Apps can have their own *adm.
--
K. Poon.
kacheong.poon at sun.com
