On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 14:34 -0500, James Carlson wrote: > Nicolas Droux writes: > > I have included below a proposal which would allow bridging to > > cleanly integrate with mac without the introduction of special > > cases in the common data-path, and enabling bridging to > > leverage the layer-2 classification that was introduced > > by Crossbow. The proposal takes into account the issues we > > discussed earlier in this thread. > > Thanks. I think the high-level issue here is deciding on a way > forward, much of which is probably outside of the architectural review > realm.
What is architecturally relevant, I think, is the feature intersection of administratively-defined flows (and the things that come with them like resource management and accounting) and bridging. For example, giving the administrator the ability to do flow accounting on a bridged link is conceivable. From a high-level administrative view, it's something that I might expect would just work given the tools given to me (dladm and flowadm) unless documented otherwise. To me, this case is complete as-is as long as we understand and document where such features don't interact. If the architecture of this case were incompatible with future work aimed at improving such feature interaction, then I'd feel differently, but I don't see that this is true. If we can agree that such work is indeed in the realm of a future project, then I'd suggest including advice to that effect to the project's management in the opinion for this case. -Seb
