>> The original PSARC states that a 'subnet-mask' property is required to be >> present before boot properties are using to configure a network >> interface (in both diskless and non-diskless cases). David Comay >> pointed out that Solaris has traditionally not required a netmask to >> be specified - the stack guesses one based on the class of the >> interface. > > With all due respect to Mr. Comay, just because something is traditional > doesn't make it right.
Agreed and as I mentioned to Dave at the time of code review (where I noticed this), I'm OK requiring the netmask too. However, it's my understanding that requiring the netmask will mean that configuring guest domains using our xVM implementation will differ from that of vendors using similar technology. Perhaps that's not a big deal given there are other options supported by xm(1) that are specific to the underlying dom0 OS but I do worry a bit about such operational differences from the upstream community. dsc
