On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 10:50:44AM -0400, Bill Sommerfeld wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 06:54 +0100, David Edmondson wrote: > > The existing tools (xm/xend, virsh) and their associated APIs do not > > require a netmask to be specified alongside the IP address of a > > network interface. > > > > So, if Solaris requires that a netmask is specified it will be > > different to the other common guest domain implementation. > > Maybe I'm confused about the case boundary. Are we talking about host > behavior, solaris guest behavior, or both?
The case concerns the behaviour of Solaris as a guest. > When we're the guest we may have to guess but we should be clear to > the admin that we're guessing because the host screwed up in not > including a netmask with the ip address. It's an administrative > error, but we recover from the error by guessing a netmask and > stumbling onward rather than halting or failing to configure the > interface. If the consensus is that this is the correct approach, I'm happy to re-word the amendment and implement the changes.
