On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 08:13:55PM +0800, Cathy Zhou wrote: > What do you think?
I think that we agree on how the system should behave. What's left, perhaps, is to figure out the pieces in which this can be delivered. Modifying the management of link namespace has to be done in one chunk. That is, we shouldn't do the "ip.tun0 is a per-zone link name" without also doing "physical links assigned a non-global zone disappear from the global zone namespace". Whether or not support for the creation of new links within a non-global zone (with the exception of IP tunnels) needs to be in the same chunk is less clear to me. I suspect that it's okay for it to be separate (as long as that isn't a regression). Does that make sense? dme.
