Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751013AbVLBUIV (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Dec 2005 15:08:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751015AbVLBUIV (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Dec 2005 15:08:21 -0500 Received: from ns2.lanforge.com ([66.165.47.211]:38876 "EHLO ns2.lanforge.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750994AbVLBUIU (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Dec 2005 15:08:20 -0500 Message-ID: <4390A9B1.3040300@candelatech.com> Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 12:08:17 -0800 From: Ben Greear Organization: Candela Technologies User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.7.12-1.3.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Boldi CC: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-net@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] ip / ifconfig redesign References: <200512022253.19029.a1426z@gawab.com> In-Reply-To: <200512022253.19029.a1426z@gawab.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1796 Lines: 52 Al Boldi wrote: > The current ip / ifconfig configuration is arcane and inflexible. The reason > being, that they are based on design principles inherited from the last > century. > > In a GNU/OpenSource environment, OpenMinds should not inhibit themselves > achieving new design-goals to enable a flexible non-redundant configuration. > > Specifically, '#> ip addr ' exhibits this issue clearly, by requiring to > associate the address to a link instead of the other way around. > > Consider this new approach for better address management: > 1. Allow the definition of an address pool > 2. Relate links to addresses > 3. Implement to make things backward-compatible. > > The obvious benefit here, would be the transparent ability for apps to bind > to addresses, regardless of the link existence. > > Another benefit includes the ability to scale the link level transparently, > regardless of the application bind state. Can you do this with the current code by using scripts/whatever to move virtual IPs around the interfaces? I guess I don't really understand what you are proposing... Ben > > And there may be many other benefits... (i.e. 100% OSI compliance) > > -- > Al > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/