Glenn Faden wrote:
> I can't see how punishing the customer is a winning strategy. The
> proposed implementation supports the scenario that Ken Powell has
> described. Your proposal doesn't. FYI, these systems are currently being
> used in critical government installations and the customer has requested
> an enhancement (which has been escalated) to simplify the administrative
> complexity. Their current workaround is untenable.
Glenn,
I don't think Ed is trying to punish the customer.
This part of the system is extremely complex and brittle - it isn't
built to be able to do per-zones routes. Hence being concerned about
customers creating invalid configurations is a concern to be taken very
seriously.
Perhaps we should go back to the drawing port and design per zones
routes i.e., the ability for route(1m) to explicitly specify a zone name
and have that cause ire_zoneid to be set in the kernel.
Erik
