Peter Tribble wrote: > 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? > Yes. > 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? > Hmm...can you explain it in more detail?
Thanks, Max
