Peter Memishian wrote: > > In the past, interface naming has been like this: > > IPv4 and IPv6 address names always match the device name and instance with > > which they are associated and always match themselves. bge0 for ipv4 will > > be bge0 for ipv6 and is bge0 underneath. > >By convention yes, but not enforced by the kernel. >
Whatever; the point is that's how it works and it largely makes sense. > > What are the new rules for associating Ipv4 and Ipv6 interfaces names > > with the devices and their instances? Does vanity naming allow for an > > interface to be given the same name in v4 and v6 but be associated with > > different devices/instances? Is there any reason that it should allow > > net0 for Ipv4 to be a different interface to net0 for Ipv6? > >There's no reason to allow it, but it would require additional complexity >in IP to prevent it. How much code should we add to IP to prevent a >demented privileged application from tying the system in knots? > Hmm, then there would seem to be an architectural deficency in vanity naming. I'm sorry I didn't catch this before commitment. btw, it isn't the privileged applications that you're protecting, it is the users themselves - it looks like the choice is to protect them when they run ifconfig rather than dladm. I hope that doesn't lead to too much confusion...because while the dladm command has succeeded but the ifconfig one failed, there would still appear to be room for confusion, vis a vis: # ifconfig vni0 inet6 plumb # dladm rename-link ce0 vni0 # snoop -d vni0 What happens now? I *really* think you need to solve the rename-link problem. Darren
