On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 10:47:03AM +0800, Max Zhen wrote: > > > 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.
Just to be clear here: the ip interface that's represented by an smf service instance is per-link, not per-address. That is, one ip instance can have many ip addresses, both v4 and v6. > > 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. Can you give some specifics on how administration is harder with this model? One thing to consider is that we will continue to support the existing tools that allow you to change persistent configuration (dladm), and will also offer both a gui and cli for nwam configuration. Even with the data being stored in the smf repository, we do not expect 'svccfg' to be the primary way to go about creating network configuration (though it will work if you choose to do that!). -renee > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > nwam-discuss mailing list > nwam-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/nwam-discuss
