James Carlson wrote:
> Sebastien Roy writes:
> > I don't see how this would directly lead to the conclusion that the IP
> > tunneling service needs to depend on milestone/network. Why wouldn't an
> > administrator view milestone/network as including the configuration of
> > IP tunnel interfaces?
>
> Agreed; it should. Assuming there is a meaningful
> "milestone/network." (I'm not too sure there is, but it seems others
> are more sure.)
I think if there is any relationship between interface/address plumbing
and milestone/network, it should be that milestone/network asserts that
at least an attempt has been made to configure each interface as
appropriate for the current profile. This will avoid a stampede of
activity from well-written services that react to interface changes as
they happen, give the best chance of success for poorly-written services
that need interfaces/addresses to be configured before they start.
-=] Mike [=-
