[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > In other words, as long as we're talking about fundamental APIs, we > > need to represent the system faithfully, and that means either ripping > > out the offending abstraction system-wide or leaving it in place. > > Agreed. However, there is a crucial distinction here between > administrative utilities and low-level API's. For the former, we need to > think critically about whether there is a need to expose these > distinctions, or whether simply having a model of IP addresses and > (physical) IP interfaces that have sets of IP addresses is sufficient.
Yep, I agree. It should be possible to evolve the APIs and the user interface separately, but I think it's hazardous to make changes in a _subset_ of either. In other words, if we choose to present a simplified model for administration (in fact, we already do, but could do better), we should use the same model everywhere, and not allow one feature or product to be "special" in the way it's administered. If customers have ever told us anything about user interfaces, it's that they must be consistent. (The "simplification" I'm referring to is the fact that we blur the line between physical and logical interfaces in ifconfig, especially for the zeroth instance, but also in allowing "plumb" to mean different things in different contexts. I think it actually makes the system substantially harder to understand, but if you're not trying to use multiple addresses on a single interface, it is simpler to use this way.) -- James Carlson, KISS Network <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
