On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Darren Reed <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/03/09 12:27 AM, Dale Ghent wrote: >> >> On Mar 7, 2009, at 4:54 PM, Jason King wrote: >> >>> Since the ball has already started to roll on this, I'd like to >>> 'officially' ask for feedback on my current proposed design for link >>> layer discovery support (specifically LLDP -- possibly in the future >>> other protocols such as CDP or EDP can be added in). The current >>> documentation can be seen at >>> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/lld/design >> >> Huzzah! Awesome work, Jason. >> >> I was reading over the Operation document and the paragraph describing >> what will populate the System Description TLV and a thought occurred to me. >> >> One of the components you're using to populate this TLV is SI_PLATFORM >> from sysinfo. On SPARC boxen, this will produce a string akin to >> "SUNW,Ultra-4" or "SUNW,Sun_Fire_T200" and so on. However, on x86, this will >> always be "i386". I think that can be improved. > > That's not his fault. > > He's returning the same information that is available from uname. > > Getting the specific box platform name, even with Solaris on Sun > x86 hardware, requires some other special command... that escapes > me at present. > > Darren > >
He suggested using libsmbios (while private to ON, since that actual code will be delivering into ON, I don't think that would pose a problem). Seems reasonable. I've been thinking of possibly also allowing an arbitrary administrative value as well (with what's there as the default), as well as the same thing with the port description -- based on the presence or absence of an appropriate SMF property. I'd need to recheck the docs, but I don't believe there's much in the way of any guidelines in the standard, so I just tried to approximate what switch vendors were putting there (from the small sample set of captured packets I had to work from), so I think both can be fairly arbitrary. I'll probably update the webpages with the idea in the next day or so (depending on how busy I am later) with the details. One other thing I've been thinking about more, or rather I'm still not 100% sold on is the naming of the dladm subcommands ( http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/lld/design/commands/ ) I'm wondering if there might be better names (e.g. 'dladm show-neighbo[u]rs'). I think the separation of operations (i.e. having a command to show the data, a command to start, to stop, etc.) is probably alright, just the names of them. _______________________________________________ storage-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/storage-discuss
