Peter Memishian wrote: > > On behalf of the RBridges team I am requesting feedback > > from the community on our plan to introduce support for > > simulated links in OpenSolaris. The document included > > in-line below introduces simlinks and is in the form of > > a PSARC fast-track document. > > I like this proposal; it seems very clean and fits in well with the dladm > architecture. A few questions: > > * I see this case is Committed, so I presume we planning to > document this construct in dladm(1M)? Or do we feel that's > not worthwhile?
I feel it should be left out of dladm man page until we gain more experience with simlinks. I can create a page on opensolaris that could list the commands and private properties. > * I'm a bit surprised by the "endpoint" terminology; it seems more > like a "peer" link to me. Or do we not require that two links > have symmetric endpoints? (e.g., if link A has endpoint B, must > link B have endpoint A? If so, I think "peer" would be a more > descriptive term.) Yes, peer link is better. I will change it in the doc. > * Related to the previous question: must the other endpoint be a > simlink? Yes it must be simlink. It is possible to remove this restriction to meet a testing need in future. > * Just a nit, but when I hear the word "simlink" I instantly think > of "symlink". Also, none of our other link classes have "link" > in the name. Agreed though the geeky name might work here given the use case. > * It seems like some of the stuff shown by show-simlink is only > due to deficiences with show-link. In particular, it's hard > to understand why show-link doesn't include the hardware address > and it should probably also have the media type. True but given that we already have show-* commands for other link classes I felt it would be expected there be a show-simlink command. Rishi _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
