> On (06/22/07 18:58), Peter Memishian wrote: > > But link_speed isn't listed in ieee802.3(5) -- so does this mean we'll use > > "speed"? More generally, I'm not convinced that reusing those names is > > the right choice (Do we really want to have a "link_up" property? Or do > > right, so the decision (if you follow all the emails that were > subsequently exchanged) was to just follow the MII definitions and use > "adv_1000fdx_cap" etc.
I'm not sure I follow, but I don't want to sweat the names too much at this point. > > we really need to have the output of show-linkprop to be knee-deep in > > obscure link negotiation options like "lp_cap_1000hdx"?) > > I personally agree, and these values are printed via kstat if needed, > but as Raymond pointed out, users can now use one command (ndd) to find > out both the advertised and link-partner's capability. If we are going > to deprecate ndd, we should have a tool that provides both in one shot.. Sure, but that doesn't mean we have to slice up the problem the same way with a billion little tunables with obscure names, does it? In other words, just because setting this stuff up has currently been modeled as a sea of properties doesn't mean that it should stay that way, or that the way the properties have been decomposed is ideal. -- meem _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
