Sebastien Roy writes: > Only one request for clarification: > > On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 13:47 -0400, James Carlson wrote: > > - /dev/bridge/ is gone > > > > This is no longer needed; Clearview's /dev/net/ observability > > nodes serve all the needs of the bridging design. > > There is some inconsistency at least in the specification (I assume that > the implementation works). /dev/net nodes are not observability nodes, > but full-fledged DLPI link nodes.
Sorry about the nomenclature. Yes, they're "real" DLPI link nodes, using plain old Ethernet, with the exception that they're not treated as bridge links and you can't transmit on them. Both the design and the 'bridging-spec.txt' architectural document cover this. (To answer the next question: a future project could allow you to transmit on them, but I don't think it's the right thing to do. I think using simnet would be a better idea for such purposes. The reason is that these nodes intentionally see *all* of the traffic for observation purposes, including traffic that no real bridge would ever allow you to see, such as that forwarded between ports. They're equivalent in functionality to a "port monitor," or just having a plain old repeater.) > /dev/ipnet nodes are IP observability > nodes. Right; we're not using those at all. We're not delivering IP changes. > The new materials state: > > + using the /dev/net/ facility implemented for "Clearview: IP > + Observability Devices" (PSARC 2006/475). These nodes will be > + named by the bridge name plus a trailing "0". > > /dev/net nodes were added by 2006/499, and /dev/ipnet nodes by 2006/475. > The inconsistency should be fixed in the spec. Ah, ok. Sorry about that; I somehow thought they were all one thing. (See? I said before that I was confused about these two classes of nodes ...) Consider the reference updated. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> 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
