On (03/23/09 14:56), Sebastien Roy wrote: > > You are suggesting that the interface name-space have the protocol
oops; s/interface/property. > In any case, given that there is a single IP interface namespace (and I > think that we agree that this is what we want, right?), then I'm the one > who is confused about the property namespace. Can this be explained in > more detail? leaving the interface name space aside, if we want the flexibility to set some/all of the following - ipv4 property value for some property X - ipv6 property value for some property X - IP property value for some property X your proposal suggests that the ip-protocol-version be embedded in the property name-space. Whereas the design doc keeps this as part of the "-f" flag, with the default being to apply it for IP. --Sowmini
