[clearview-discuss] 2007/527 Addendum for Clearview Vanity Naming and Nemo Unification

[Peter Memishian]

 > > Keep in mind that our architecture needs to consider Solaris 10, not just
 > > Nevada.  Most Solaris 10 networking drivers are not GLDv3-based.
 > >   
 > Good point.  I didn't realize that UV was targeting S10.
 > 
 > However, I wonder what the expense of this effort is, compared to the 
 > effort of backporting the GLDv3 work.

There are other dimensions besides GLDv3 driver support -- e.g., Crossbow
will make use of the Vanity Naming feature to provide administratively
chosen names for VNICs.  Also if we didn't backport UV, the GLDv3
codebases for S10 and Nevada would become significantly different, which
also greatly impacts Crossbow (since the Crossbow S10 backport would
become more of a reimplementation than a backport -- with commensurate
impact on testing).

--
meem