> The following document describes the changes to dladm and SMF that
> we're proposing for the RBridges project. We'd appreciate any
> comments you might have on this plan (either privately or on any of
> the open lists) prior to submission for ARC review.
The proposal seems pretty reasonable on first read to me. A couple of
comments and questions:
* Given that bridges represent an entirely new type of object,
was consideration given to a bridgeadm command? If so, what
were the factors that ultimately swayed the team to extending
dladm?
* As is noted, the bridge name needs to be constrained due to
its observability device node name. Given that legal DLPI
character set is just [A-Z][a-z][0-9]_, it seems tighter
constraints may be needed to ensure compatibility.
* How will applications using dlpi_open() indicate they want
a node in /dev/bridge? For /dev/ipnet we're adding a
DLPI_IPNET flag; is DLPI_BRIDGE planned?
--
meem
