[ Stepping back in time... ] Excerpts from Erik Nordmark's message of Tue Jun 05 20:07:27 BST 2007: > David Edmondson wrote: > > I can imagine that specific example being useful when using some kind of > > scripted zone creation. > > My imagination isn't that good. I still don't understand the your use > case :-( > > > How different is that example from saying that both zoneA and zoneB > > should be able to create links with the name "foo0"? > > That is an argument for it potentially being easy to implement, and not > about a use case. > > > If the links assigned to the non-global zones exist in a separate part > > of the namespace, then having each of them see 'net0' should be > > possible, with the presumption that the global zone would rename the > > link after assigning it to the non-global zone. > > Ditto. > > Sorry for being dense, but I'd like to understand the problem you think > we need to solve before discussing a solution.
The thinking was along the lines of "what model would make sense?" rather than "here's a specific problem that would be solved". For problems, I'd be tempted to refer back to the justification for the vanity naming - if it's useful for an administrator to be able to choose the name shown for a particular link, then it would also be useful for a non-global zone administrator to do the same. If that is true (and I'm not really sure that it is), two non-global zone administrators might want to use the same name. The IP tunnel stuff also is a factor. If two non-global zones will have links called "ip.tun0" and those are not the same link, it seems odd (to an administrator) that two non-global zones shouldn't be able to have links with the name "foo0", where they are not the same link. dme.
