On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 18:46 +0800, Kacheong Poon wrote: > 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?
I think so, that seems reasonable. In addition to that, it should be possible to make the configuration of a tunnel unconditional (e.g., always configure this tunnel). > > 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. Okay, thanks. -Seb
