Steven Stallion writes: > I completely agree that the problem should be fixed rather than ignored, > but if the risk is to great to fix it outright, why not issue a warning > in the meantime? At the least, it notifies a user (or engineer) that how > they make use of pointopoint interfaces may need to be re-thought out.
If all it does is cause fear and worry among those who *are* using it properly, then I don't think it's worth even that. > It could also be that I am oversimplifying the problem; it would seem > that if IFF_POINTOPOINT is not set on the interface at the time of the > SIOCSIFDSTADDR ioctl call, a warning would be issued via cmn_err (the > call would still succeed as it does today). > > I suppose there is also the option of simply categorizing this as a > feature and not a bug. Adding messages -- particularly warning messages -- has a cost. The cost is unnecessarily alarming people who are not doing the wrong thing. If we're going to emit a message, it'd better not be speculative: it'd better explain what's wrong. I think doing that requires fixing PPP first. -- 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]
