> > such a DAD mechanism would look like if you had the ability to bring > > addresses down/up with ipadm. (I haven't looked at the latest design > > document, so apologies if it covers this). > > Not sure what you have in mind, but one of Erik's comments was that > we should move away from the model of bringing addresses up/down > (and instead focus on bringing the interface up/down) based on > the assertion that if an address is undesirable, it should be deleted, > not downed.
Yes, Erik and I spoke about this last week. My take is that interface up/down is an unnecessary administrative concept and that address up/down has more value. That is an administrator should not need to concern themselves with whether an IP interface is up for the same reason they don't concern themselves with whether a datalink is up today. Instead, this can be something managed by the operating system internally (e.g., if an address is up, then the operating system can bring the interface up -- this is not something the admin needs to be involved in). As far as address up/down goes, my take is that (a) the operating system will need to have this concept internally to support DAD and (b) if you have it then it's easy to do things like retry DAD or temporarily disable an address without having to add more subcommands or force the admin to tear down the related address configuration (e.g., deprecated markings, shared-stack zoneid and so forth). It also is a closer match for the way the stack currently behaves and thus has fewer warts. All that said, I think the default should be for addresses to be up -- that is, the admin should not need to go through an explicit "up" step. Removing this step simplifies the process without removing the utility of address up/down. -- meem _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
