Garrett D'Amore wrote: > On the one hand, this looks pretty good. On the other hand, I find it > really unfortunate that we have to create yet another kind of virtual > interface in addition to etherstubs and VNICs. I think many customers > are going to be left wondering which one of these things they should use > and why. > > Is it not possible that we could integrate the functionality (perhaps as > an additional option) to etherstubs or vnics? (I'm thinking of a kind > of "attach" or "link" command that might be used to link a pair of > etherstubs together, for example: dladm link-etherstub etherstub0 > etherstub1, which could have much the same kind of result, although it > wouldn't necessarily support the WiFi semantics....)
It is possible but I personally think it would be more confusing to introduce simlinks as a new type of etherstub/VNIC. By keeping them distinct and calling them 'simlinks' should be clear that they are a testing resource. Rishi _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
