> > 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.
As above, it would work in the same manner. > Besides, it is a more constrainted version of my suggestion that ends > up being a variant of logical interfaces. Yes. The constraint is intentional to avoid the administrator associating other semantics with these address objects. That is, these address objects are not inherently tied to a specific hostname -- or in the case of DHCP, even a specific IP address. > You've just constrained the address "vanity name" space to be structured > as <interface name>/[digit]+ That's right -- plus the ability for the system to choose the next available identifier as a convenience. > 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. The former proposal being the constrained names? In any case, I'm not trying to strongarm you into agreeing with my proposal, but rather make my concerns regarding the existing proposal as clear as possible. I would be interested in hearing some other takes on this -- e.g., Seb, what's your view? -- meem
