On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Peter Memishian <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Are there any plans to raise the stability at all (or otherwise > > provide a way to obtain the information)? Also are there any plans > > for upgrading the stability of any of anything in libdladm? LLDP > > supports sending information about aggregrations, vlans, as well as > > other things -- which suggests a close relationship with [lib]dladm -- > > It could always periodically run dladm and parse the output it if need > > be, but why go through all that if it's not necessary. > > Are you targeting the ON consolidation? If so, the current classification > is fine for your use.
At this point, I'm leaning towards yes, but not 100% convinced (yet). If there are no plans to change them anytime soon, then that would probably seal the deal. Potential interplay with FCoE seems like it might also be a good argument for that as well. Having messed with a few ideas, I feel more comfortable with proposing an updated design for consideration (just need to write it out). My plan is to present the updated design to the networking community and if no objections, present it to ARC (I'm pretty much navigating this on my own, so I hope my approach is reasonable), then proceed to do the work (though I think a good chunk of the prototype could be recycled to assist). _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
