> > That sounds like a datalink, not an interface. Given that the protocol > > family is PF_INET/PF_INET6, it seems like the namespace should be objects > > in that namespace -- i.e., IPv4 and IPv6 interfaces, not datalinks. (Note > > that it is possible (though certainly not recommended) to have a datalink > > named foo0 and an interface named foo0 that have no relationship to one > > another.) > > I'm not sure that I understand what you're trying to say.
I presume you're asking about the disjoint namespaces. Since IP interfaces are not necessarily instantiated from datalinks (e.g., vni(7D), loopback, and IPMP interfaces all exist only at the IP layer), there may be dormant datalinks with the same name. For instance, someone might create an IPMP interface named foo0 and may also have an unplumbed datalink named foo0 that has nothing do with that IPMP interface. If the admin has no need to use the datalink named foo0 for IP traffic, the two foo0's peacefully coexist. However, a PF_INET SIOCGIFHWADDR for foo0 unambiguously refers to the only IP object with that name (the IPMP interface), not the foo0 datalink that's unused. It seems like what you've proposed will erroneously return the hardware address for foo0 in this case. Note that this issue is particular to PF_INET/PF_INET6 -- other protocol families (e.g., PF_PACKET) are free to define the namespace associated wieth their objects -- which may well be datalinks. -- meem _______________________________________________ opensolaris-arc mailing list [email protected]
