On (04/21/09 11:11), Sebastien Roy wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 10:42 -0400, [email protected] wrote: > > OTOH I might want to mark an entire interface as down if, for example, > > I want to disable any traffic on that datalink without incurring the > > overhead of unplumbing the link. > > At the link layer, this certainly makes sense to me. It would IMO be > useful to have something to bring links administratively down with > dladm. Also, what I've thought about in the past is that (if done > right) this could help with the usability of DR by allowing hardware to > be replaced while a link is administratively down without having to > unplumb any IP interfaces of stop applications that are using the link. > The link state simply goes down during the DR operation. This also > helps by circumventing the wacky cfgadm hardware namespace that no-one > understands. > > This may be a slight digression, my only point is that I see value in an > administrative up/down at the datalink level, and this may address what > you describe above. This may not necessarily be a requirement for IP > interfaces.
agree that this is a digression, but your proposal would turn off traffic for all mac clients (not just the ip interfaces), and is a bit more complicated than the IP model of turning off IFF_UP on the ill. I think its closer to turning off IFF_RUNNING (which is a CANTCHANGE flag, but I assume you are thinking of adding a new knob to disable the packet flow at the data link). --Sowmini _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
