> 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 > > or if you want to use instances for something else (though I wonder what > that would be). > > svc:/network/routing/ipv4 > svc:/network/routing/ipv6 > > Why is forwarding "under" routing shouldn't it be: > > svc:/network/forwarding/ipv4 > svc:/network/forwarding/ipv6 > > or if there is no need for alternate instances: > > svc:/network/forwarding:ipv4 > svc:/network/forwarding:ipv6
My view of this: - Multiple instances for IPv4 and v6 are bad: it's needlessly confusing admins with low-level details, and making it annoyingly hard to manipulate the service in what I suspect is the common use case: disable routing or enable it. i.e. that becomes multiple weird steps as opposed to just one. - I strongly agree w/ Jim about the semantic difference between forwarding and routing: he explained this earlier. Don't confuse or conjoin them. So I'd much prefer to just see network/routing:default (where instance other than :default could be used by someone else to add another routing daemon or protocol that were a useful thing to do), and have it support properties to permit tuning v4/v6 separately if you truly feel that is needed, and also a property group of static routes to add. Also please get rid of /etc/inet/routing.conf. But I assume you're doing that. -Mike -- Mike Shapiro, Solaris Kernel Development. blogs.sun.com/mws/
