James Carlson wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore writes:
>
>> I've seen hardware implementations where "active scanning" cannot be
>> done while connected.
>>
>
> What about the questions I asked?
>
> What's the purpose of forcing a disconnect in the library itself
> _after_ doing a scan? Why do we do that?
>
> If there are interlocks between scanning and either the connect
> process itself or the entire connected state, then what part of the
> system should be responsible for enforcing those restrictions? Right
> now, it looks like it's left up to the application program -- which,
> for dladm(1M), means that the user typing the command has the
> responsibility.
>
> I don't think that makes sense. At a minimum, I think we're lacking
> some archtecture here.
>
I don't know about those. I was just offering a data point. It does
sound like there is indeed some architecture missing.
-- Garrett
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
