On 03/26/09 15:58, Sebastien Roy wrote:
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 15:41 -0400, Girish Moodalbail wrote:
On 03/26/09 11:43, [email protected] wrote:
To summarize,
the model being proposed is
- ipadm create-interface will only create a "virtual object" with
no underlying plumbing done at the time..
- ipadm add-address will plumb as needed.
IPv6: turnin gon ADDRCONF (and/or dhcpv6)
Well with the above model bringing up an IPv6 interface (with neighbor
discovery and dhcpv6) would now need two commands. First use ipadm
create-interface and then ipadm add-address. This is highly undesirable
for an end user configuring a system for IPv6 (given that 'ifconfig' did
it one go).
The better thing to do is to always "plumb" both IPv4 and IPv6 with
'ipadm create-interface'. If there is someone who does not like this
then he could use an "optional [-f]" flag to specify what interface he
needs.
Sure, or an interface property. I'm wondering why you believe that a
high-level create-interface flag is preferable to an "ipv4-only" or
"ipv6-only" property
Nothing extraordinary, just that it's consistent with various other
commands in networking, which uses "-f" to mean address family. If
property makes more sense, then sure, property it will be.
thanks
~Girish
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
