On 25/03/09 11:55 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On (03/25/09 09:05), Darren Reed wrote:
Which is good... and if I refer back to the CLI you presented earlier:
# ipadm {create,modify}-interface [-t] [-f {inet, inet6}] \
[-if6_intf_id=<IPv6 Interface ID>] \
[-O <interface sub-options>] <interface>
Then the concept you're pushing of an interface being a "thing"
that can have multiple address families requires that the "-f"
option be dropped completely. Another alternative might be to
make the family a mandatory option before "-t", without the "-f".
If you drop the -f completely, how is the ipadm user going to mandate
that (s)he will have "no ipv6 interfaces", or "no ipv4 interfaces"?
In other words, yes, we can have all of the following:
- make ipadm present the (illusory, today) BSD-like impression that there
is just one interface, that can be used flexibly for ipv4 and ipv6.
- under the covers, we can continue having the ipv4/ipv6 ill model, where
both are created by "ipadm create-interface <foo>".
- ifconfig will still report ipv4 and ipv6 as separate ills
But what if the adminstrator really does not want to create an
ipv4 capable interface, and only wants the ipv6 capability? If we want
to provide this feature (as an option) thorugh ipadm, we'd need the
-f flag.
Hmm, I might have been a bit obscure in how I phrased one of those
suggestions...
Can the command line work like this:
ipadm {create,modify}-interface <inet|inet6> [-t] ...
Is there ever a situation where neither inet nor inet6 will be there?
Darren
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
