Darren Reed writes: > On 4/03/09 11:26 AM, James Carlson wrote: > > Breaking strict_dst on a Minor release boundary wouldn't offend me > > much, and with OpenSolaris claiming Major release binding, I think > > it's just irrelevant. There's no upgrade path planned (as far as I > > know) from S10 to anything -- the path from there goes into > > S10-branded zones, and not a system upgrade. > > > > Given that the ... official use of ndd to do these things is... questioned, > is there room here to take another path, such as printing a warning message > when working on "old" variables that we intend to deprecate?
Sure. We've done that in the past. The only problem with it is that the "warnings" seem to live in the code forever. It's that follow-through thing that's hard to do. :-/ > > I didn't say you couldn't turn on strict_dst and then "exempt" some of > > the interfaces from those restrictions by setting the "router" flag. > > Instead, I said that strong-ES (as defined) doesn't work with routing. > > Our strict_dst implementation just makes the two states mutually > > exclusive: you either get forwarding on an interface or strict_dst, > > but you can't get both. > > > > Having it coupled with the "router" flag may not be ideal, but being able to > control it on a per-interface basis could be of benefit. > > Although the defined strong-end model results in the restrictions being > disabled when forwarding is turned on, if there was a third position for > that knob that allowed for that behaviour even when routing, I'm sure > people would appreciate that. As far as I can tell, the concept is just fundamentally broken with routing. I'm not sure how you could combine them ... I'd need to read details about what the new behavior would be. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
