> > > Given that iptun *must* have both addresses, is it better to require > > them > > > to be provided as a comma-separated pair? > > > > That's not so; e.g. a 6to4 tunnel only has one address. > > true. for ipadm the syntax is -a <addr>[,<addr>] where the tunnel type > is used to check if one or two addresses is needed. but my point was > that, instead of using a separate -l and -r we could get both in the > same option..
Yes. I'm fine with `-a <addr>[,<addr>]' (I think I suggested it a while back), but I think Seb doesn't care for it much, and it seems some feel confused by the order of the addresses (though I find it natural that the source/local address is first). I think I'm fine with most anything as long as dladm and ipadm work similarly (that is, I can deal with "-l" meaning something different with create-iptun, though of course it'd be preferable to not have to do that :-). -- meem
