On (07/16/09 11:39), Peter Memishian wrote: > > It seems like you want it both ways here. That is, you want to give the > administrator the "convenience" of being able to use a hostname as a > label, but then acknowledge that it falls apart in many real-world > scenarios and want to discourage the practice and have them come up with a > new set of names for their IP addresses.
all of the above is true, except that *I* personally am not attached to the "convenience"- that's the feedback I got from people who want to use this. > I have suggested an alternative of using an "improved" version of the > existing logical interface naming scheme which does not have the V4/V6 > namespace split and which would also accommodate address bundles in the > same manner that address labels accommodate them (at least, to the degree > which I understand how address labels accommodate them). Specifically, > each address object for a particular IP interface (whether it's a single > address, a point-to-point address, or an IPv6 address bundle) would have > an associated numeric identifier. During create-addr, the administrator > can either choose this identifier or have the system assign one for them. > The address object is then identified by the interface/id tuple until it > is eventually removed -- i.e., net0/0 or net0/86 or whatever. > > What are your reservations regarding such as system? Is it that you feel > it does not provide enough semantic meaning? yes. and (unless you want net0/86 to denote a group of addresses when IPv6 is concerned) it does not work for IPv6 as Erik pointed out. Besides, it is a more constrainted version of my suggestion that ends up being a variant of logical interfaces. You've just constrained the address "vanity name" space to be structured as <interface name>/[digit]+ I've proposed that we should allove the "vanity name"/label to be any alpanumeric string (that starts with an alphabet. If the former proposal will put this discussion to bed, I'm ok with it. --Sowmini
