On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 09:50:24AM -0500, Sebastien Roy wrote: > > If we think we can finish this (libipadm with persistence and being used > > by ifconfig) by the next minor release then we can at least consider > > making persistent the only way - even when ifconfig is used as the CLI. > > While it could be considered, I think it would be too risky a change > even for a Minor release, and maybe even for a Major release. I don't > think it would be acceptable to require 3rd party software to be > modified to undo unwanted persistent configuration.
Thank you Seb. > On a related note, if ipadm is the preferred way to configure a system, > what is the programmatic model for IP configuration from shell scripts > in this new world order? Surely, knowing that there exists software > that dynamically configures IP interfaces on the fly with no need (nor > want) for persistent configuration (think VPN server), then a > persistent-only ipadm by itself won't be very friendly. Even SMF, the very model of persistence, has its "-t" option for temporary/transient settings. > If we want such software to migrate to ipadm and not use ifconfig for > perpetuity, then what is the story for such software? One obvious > answer is that ipadm needs to support temporary configuration. There > may be other answers. ipadm the command may be persistent, but libipadm MUST not be exclusively persistent, or apps that configure transient network configurations will find ways around libipadm. Dan _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
