On Dec 14, 2007 7:04 AM, Max Zhen <Max.Zhen at sun.com> wrote: > Hello, > > We've been discussing this issue for some time within NWAM and Clearview > mailing alias. I think it's time to try to involve more people on this. > So, I'm writing this email to seek some suggestions from you :). > > A little bit background: > We're trying to use smf instances to represent networking configuration > in a system. Our current design is that one data link, or IP interface > is represented by one smf instance.
Does this include logical interfaces? The idea that all network interfaces (especially logical interfaces) be represented as individual services doesn't make any sense to me. It makes administration much harder, and apart from the temporary configuration problem isn't likely to scale. Would it make sense to consider interface groups in the same way that we have share groups managed by sharemgr? -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
