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

[Garrett D'Amore]

Peter Memishian wrote:
>  > > 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. 

I understand that.  The "V" portion is still important, obviously.

>  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).
>   

Sure.

    - Garrett

> --
> meem
>