Erik Nordmark wrote: > David Edmondson wrote: > >> If the global zone creates a link with the name "foo0" and then >> assigns that link to a non-global zone, the global zone should be free >> to create a link with the name "foo0" (without the destruction of the >> original link). Without the namespace manipulation, how would this >> happen? > > Why should it be free to do so? I don't understand where the requirement > is coming from, and what real-world problem it is solving.
It seemed obvious :-p I can imagine that specific example being useful when using some kind of scripted zone creation. How different is that example from saying that both zoneA and zoneB should be able to create links with the name "foo0"? >>> There are two things that are not clear to me (because I haven't >>> thought about the tradeoffs) >>> - should we allow a ngz to vanity name links assigned to it by the >>> gz (it can vanity name the links it creates without any added >>> complexity I suspect) >> >> I suspect 'no', as that would be confusing for the global zone >> administrator. > > Yes, that is a relevant concern. > The tradeoff is that if we want all the ngz's (exclusive-IP zones) to > all have their network interface named 'net0' then we'd need something > that can vanity name them. > Perhaps you view that the gz should do that (and what would help me > understand your first paragraph above). An alternative is that the ngz > vanity names the datalink. 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. dme.
