Sebastien Roy wrote:
> tunnel should be part of a LLP. At the same time, the NWAM architecture
> describes an upper-layer profile as something that defines a set of
> things that happen under certain conditions, such as the configuration
> of IP addresses in a particular subnet, or which physical links are
> connected. It would make sense to make the configuration of an IP
> tunnel conditional on such criteria.
Using the current proposal, this is the "Conditional" case in
the link/interface specification. And we have not yet fully
specified what conditions we allow in the first release. We
will add the conditions to handle the above case.
In this case, the user can specify an IP tunnel link and an IP
tunnel interface (please correct me if I mis-understood the
Clearview IP tunnel design) "conditional" (I just make it a
verb :-) on certain IP addresses being available. And in the
case just discussed in the Clearview mailing list which an IP
tunnel does not need to depend on the IP addresses it uses to
be available, the IP tunnel can be default to be enabled. It
will be created regardless. Does this work?
> As such, I don't see the LLP vs. ULP distinction as being very clear cut
> for IP tunnels, and I think I'd benefit from a whack on the head by a
> heavy clue stick. :-)
IP tunnel configuration is in the link/interface specification
(we have moved away from LLP to avoid confusion). I think we
should be clear about that.
--
K. Poon.
kacheong.poon at sun.com
