On (07/16/09 17:28), Sebastien Roy wrote: > > The format of the label is less interesting to me, but using > <interface-name>/<index> seems like a fine labeling scheme to me. Using > <interface-name>:<index> would be a wink to the existing design, has > that been considered? ;-)
yes, it was considered, and we ran away from it, because the kernel also uses that name-space. What if "bge0:4" mapped to the logical interface bge0:19 (or in the case of V6, bge0:19, bge0:20, bge0:21)? Already the overlap between hostname and labels is causing so much churn! If I had to choose, I would prefer the interface/number constraint. > Another idea would be to have a label namespace that is flexible (not > strictly constrained to an interface name and index), while > automatically generated labels could use a convention using an interface > name and index. > that was where I was coming from. But seems like the hostname namespace has to be kept disntinct from this space. --Sowmini
