hi Darren >Alan Maguire wrote: >> svc:/network/routing/ipv4-routing >> svc:/network/routing/ipv6-routing >> svc:/network/routing/ipv4-forwarding >> svc:/network/routing/ipv6-forwarding > > First I like that you have svc:/network/routing/ > > I'm not sure I like that the word routing is repeated again later, why not > have: > > svc:/network/routing:ipv4 > svc:/network/routing:ipv6
the reason we went with these somewhat redundant names is that we wanted the abbreviated FMRIs to map to the existing associated routeadm flags, i.e. ipv4-routing -> svc:/network/routing/ipv4-routing:default this allows users to: svcadm disable ipv4-routing etc. users familiar with routeadm might find this more familiar. ditto for the forwarding services. > Why is forwarding "under" routing shouldn't it be: > > svc:/network/forwarding/ipv4 > svc:/network/forwarding/ipv6 the reason we didn't create a separate forwarding namespace is that i can't think of services we'd populate it with other than those to turn forwarding knobs on and off. if that's the right thing to do though, we'd be happy to do it. we certainly don't want to give the impression that forwarding and routing are inextricably tied (though of course they are related). thanks! alan This message posted from opensolaris.org
