On (11/01/08 00:44), Peter Memishian wrote: > To: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark at Sun.COM> > > > > All current and all future interfaces > > > > The text above reads as the first one. > > > > I think we need the second one. > > Agreed.
I've clarified the text appropriately to call out "all current and future interfaces" in my own copy, since that is what was intended. > > I don't know if there is a case for the first one as well, or if the > > second one is sufficient. > > Couldn't it be approximated by just making N ipadm invocations each with a > different interface name? I'd agree with that.. if we find a lot of usage for the "only current interfaces" case, we can add extra hooks to support this later. --Sowmini
