On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 08:57:34AM -0500, Sebastien Roy wrote: > On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 03:58 -0800, Darren Reed wrote: > > James Carlson wrote: > > > We'd probably be better off just to hash ESSID and BSSID together and > > > use some printable form of the hash as the secobj name. > > > > > > > I like that last idea better than any of the above as it reduces > > the chance of a natural collision. > > That would only make sense to me if there was a documented way of > knowing what secobj name was being used by NWAM for any given WiFi link. > Otherwise, it makes it difficult to diagnose problems through the CLI by > doing: > > dladm connect-wifi -e <essid> -k <secobj-name> <link> > > ... after NWAM has automatically created <secobj-name> through the GUI.
Couldn't secobj's be annotated? _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
