David Bustos wrote: > Quoth Zhenghui Xie on Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:08:13PM -0700: ... > ... >> IV. hostname.<if> interfaces: >> NWAM will try to obsolete hostname.<if> interfaces. Given that these >> interfaces are very well-known and generally used by our customers as >> write-to, instead of read-from, interfaces, we need to support them >> for backwards compatibility. > > I think we should support upgrade from them, but not support them > directly, after NWAM integrates. > >> A proposal for these interfaces is that when NWAM starts, it will look at >> the existence of these files and translate the information in them to the >> SMF repository. >> * If no Link-Layer Profile (LLP) exists for a given link, NWAM will create >> a new LLP for the link in question, and include information from the >> hostname.<if> file. >> * If a corresponding LLP exists already, NWAM will check the information >> and decide if there is a conflict. If not, nothing needs to be done. >> When there is a conflict, which one to honor is an open question, but >> we have a bias towards simply honoring whatever is in the SMF repository. > > I think you should treat the repository as authoritative, and if you > find that a file has been changed, you should notify the user that the > interface is obsolete, and the new interfaces must be used. I believe > that's what inetd does if you change inetd.conf. >
inetd actually suggests running inetconv, but yes, that's basically the strategy. Dave
