David Edmondson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 09:09:02PM +0800, Cathy Zhou wrote: >>> In the current implementation it's the case that a link exists before >>> it is assigned to a zone, so the link is already represented in the >>> namespace of the global zone. Will Clearview + IP Instances allow a >>> non-global zone administrator to change the name of a link that is >>> assigned to the non-global zone? >>> >> It is possible, but I would think it will be in the scope of another >> project. > > That sounds like "No, it will not be possible." Is that right? > Right. In the Clearview project time frame, we don't plan to do that. But at the same time, we want to make decision carefully so that it will not be difficult if we want to evolve the administration support in the future.
>>> Your suggestion, viewed in this light, suggests that the link >>> namespace should be "per zone", which seems right. Maybe a necessary >>> consequence of this is that the global zone cannot manipulate links >>> that are part of a non-global zone's namespace. >>> >> I agree. But what kind of operation is seen as a manipulation of the >> link.? For example, whether global zone can create a VLAN or a >> aggregation over a physical link after the link is assigned to an >> exclusive zone? Whether a global zone can export a VLAN over this >> physical link to anther zone (which currently is valid operation)? > > A zone would not be able to create new links that are derivatives or > composites of links that are not part of the zone's "immediate" > namespace (where "immediate" means "without the zone name prefix"). > This restriction would apply to all zones (i.e. including the global > zone). > If I understand correctly, two examples I gave should not be allowed. Is that right? >>> The "two level" namespace could be a way out of this (prefix the link >>> name with that of the zone, or perhaps just a "zone" specifier as an >>> argument to link namespace manipulation tools). >>> >> As I described in my first mail, we don't think to have zone as an >> argument is a good idea. I propose to just not show >> local-zone-created links in the global zone. > > If the split is clear then I don't see why non-global zone created > links would not be shown in the global zone (with the non-global zone > prefix, obviously). > Except the dladm show-link operation, in your mind what other operation could see local zone links in a global zone? Thanks - Cathy
