David Edmondson wrote: > Cathy, it seems that we're at cross purposes somehow. Rather than try > to answer your questions directly (they confused me somewhat), perhaps > we could agree on the behaviour of the system if your proposal is > implemented? > > For example, after your proposal, would the namespace of link-level > objects be strictly "per-zone"? > > What happens to links that are assigned to non-global zones? Are they > removed from the namespace of the global zone? > I think that is the correct things to do.
> If a link is assigned to a non-global zone, is that non-global zone > permitted to create new links by composition or refinement of the > assigned link (aggregations or VLANs, for example)? Is the global > zone permitted to create new links in that way? > Yes, the local zone should be able to create new links over the physical links belongs to this zone, and the global zone should not be allowed to do that sorts of things. But again, support dladm in a local zone is outside of the Clearview scope. The naming removal from the global zone namespace and the proposed behavior of the global zone doesn't match what we have today (global zone doesn't have any restrictions on links that it has assigned to the local zone). I think this could be fixed either by Clearview or a separate RFE. What do you think? Thanks - Cathy
