On 09/02/09 09:23, Sowmini.Varadhan at Sun.COM wrote: >>> 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 > : >> I don't care for it indeed. The dladm syntax (and the ifconfig syntax > : >> independently. For example, one has the flexibility do the following as >> distinct steps: >> >> dladm create-iptun -T ipv4 tun0 >> dladm modify-iptun -s <src> tun0 >> dladm modify-iptun -d <dst> tun0 > > I see. > > I'm ok with -l, -d as well, but another option is to follow the > getsubopt(3C) model of -a local=<addr>[,remote=<addr>].
Further flowadm(1M) does follow that convention too. flowadm -a local_ip=<addr>,remote_ip=<addr> .. I guess it's better to be explicit and less confusing (which would be the case in '-a saddr,daddr' ~Girish
