> > 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)?
Right. It would also cause massive confusion -- e.g., ifconfig and ipadm may show things with the same name that refer to totally different objects. > 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. "Has to be kept distinct" because of my objections, or because you also agree that it would cause confusion? -- meem
