> > > > >>I. Proposal: >> network/loopback, network/physical, network/initial, network/services will >> be >> deleted. The transient tasks currently done by these services will be done >> by >> NWAM daemon except the IP sec related part and the IP tunneling related >> part >> in network/initial. >> >> > >I'm slightly confused by the wording and the intent. If network/initial >is deleted, then how can IPsec and IP tunneling still be in >network/initial? > > > sorry for the confusion. what I meant, is that NWAM daemon will take care of most of the transient tasks in network/initial (and other deleted services as well). But the IP tunneling tasks and IPsec tasks in network/initial might be done by the IPsec service(s) and/or IP tunneling service if it will exist, so NWAM daemon don't need to do it.
>Also, why is IP tunneling not something that would be configured by the >NWAM daemon itself like other IP interfaces? Would it not be >appropriate to have tunnel configuration be part of a profile much like >a link aggregation or an IPMP group? > > > It could be or could not be. Previously we thought IP tunneling will be done by a service in which case NWAM only need to enable/disable it at a "right" time. But now it will change as you mentioned, we can discuss it more about how it works. >> milestone/network will remain for backwards compatibility, but it will be >> obsoleted so that we can delete it later. There might be concerns that >> poorly >> written network applications will need to depend on milestone/network >> because they will fail if they don't find certain peer. >> >> > >The above rationale for milestone/network isn't consistent with the >milestone/network in step 3 below. > > > I am not sure I understand what you imply correctly. Do you mean that "obsolete" here is conflicting with "enable" in step 3? by "obsolete", we just propose to reduce the level of stability but still keep it for Solaris11. Or maybe you meant something else? > >>Note2: Per Seb's latest email, clearview team is re-defining IP tunneling. No >>IP >> tunneling service is listed here for now. >> >> > >That's true, but it would be good to know where NWAM sees IP tunnels >fitting in. Can I define a tunnel as part of a profile? If this is the >case wouldn't they be created by the NWAM daemon? > > > > As I said, we will discuss more. :-) I will need a little more input of "define a tunnel". So how will clearview configure a tunnel? and another question is that: would this configuration be part of an interface so that different interfaces can have different tunnels? or would this configuration be system wise? If it is per interface, then I think LLP would be a better place to keep the information. ULP discussed here is not the right place to do so. -Jan
