Peter Memishian wrote:
> > > What percentage of the ON interfaces to DLPI will be replaced with
> > > using libdlpi by this project?
> >
> >All.
>
> I meant to ask a follow up question to this - does this project
> need to document this, either by explicitly listing these in
> its documentation or by filing fastracks or other documents
> that list this project as a dependency?
Conversion of all code in ON to this library is necessary in order for us
to meet the requirements[1] of Vanity Naming, which has not yet gone
through PSARC. So I think that case would have the dependency; this case
just provides the infrastructure. I think the only architectural
requirement this case has as far as adoption is to not leave behind any
evidence of the old library.
Is this worth mentioning for the benefit of PSARC members in
that forum, just as a follow up email, or would they all assume
that something like this was going to happen anyway?
Speaking more practically, I believe the only way to ensure adoption of
libdlpi is to convert everything over to use it. Otherwise, we can be
sure that some enterprising individual will unearth and clone the one
remaining bad example, and it will spread like cancer.
And another key to that will be getting libpcap updated.
Darren
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
