David Edmondson wrote: > 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". > What exactly you mean by "disappear from the global zone namespace". Does you mean the global zone cannot see it at all. Even by dladm show-link or show-linkprop? Note that it can be seen by both today and show-linkprop can actually be used to set zoneid of a specific link.
... and although I don't disagree, I want to understand why you feel strongly that these two has to be done in on chunk. Is this because the inconsistency caused by the per-zone ip.tun0 link that if the tunnel is created in the local zone, it cannot be shown in the global zone, but if it is created in the global zone, it can be shown in the global zone? Thanks - Cathy
