David Edmondson wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 04:17:51PM -0400, Sebastien Roy wrote: >> Implementing this is not trivial, which led me to the question of >> whether this flexibility (not requiring a link name) is at all useful. >> I'd actually prefer having the link name be a required part of the >> create-* subcommands of dladm. > > Requiring a link name as an argument pushes (some of) the burden of > managing the link namespace onto the caller. This is an irritation, > as the caller has to deal with collisions, racing creators, etc. > > Replicate that code in a couple of places and you're pretty sure to > end up with brokenness in one of them. > > I'd _much_ rather have (the option of) the tools choose a name. > From a docs perspective, I think that the link name requirement aligns better with what our clearview docs say about the vanity naming feature.
In the docs, we highlight that vanity naming allows the admin to assign meaningful names to links. Names are no longer restricted to underlying hardware or tunnel types. Admins are encouraged to take advantage of this feature to facilitate their admin tasks. If we don't require the name, e.g., when creating tunnels, then the old method is automatically used to name the tunnel (ip.tun#, ip6.tun#, ip.6to4tun#). Or maybe some other random method would be used to automatically assign the name. Either ways, it would shift away from what the docs encourages admins to do: assign more relevant names where applicable. Raoul
