Darren Reed writes: > We've been cracking our heads on another problem: > the desire to use link names (rather than mac names) > of interfaces as the administrative interface, the lack > of a mapping between the two and how to overcome that. > > More specifically, the question being debated is whether > or not to allow "renamed" links to be used with their > "vanity" name or their "real" name. > > It sounds like you want to take the approach of ignoring > the vanity name and only use the mac name - which makes > life easier.
Actually, no, that's not quite true. The issue I was talking about in this thread was how to handle the data path in DLS and/or MAC. I need to intercept and inject packets at a level that the framework doesn't seem to support directly. That doesn't involve the link name. I expect the user interface to deal in link names (like everything else in dladm), and the kernel to get numeric (unchanging) datalink_id_t values that it can use. That's a completely separate issue. I'd guess that L2 Filtering ought to be doing the same thing -- using libdladm to look up link identities as required -- but that's probably something you need to discuss with the Clearview folks. > What are your thoughts about whether or not the "vanity" > name is used or not? I think all of the administrative interfaces need to be written in terms of the link vanity names. Anything else will get extremely confusing -- especially since the purpose of vanity names is to deal with stuff like DR. > "policy routing" for layer 2 is not something that we've > been focused on at present (which is what I expect would > tie in with the work you're doing here.) Yes, that sounds right. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
