On (07/17/09 13:22), Peter Memishian wrote: > > > Thus I think it is better to either have free text labels. Or we could > > > do alphabetic instead numeric e.g net0/a and net0/b. With alphabetic we > > > could still auto-assign them. > > > > I like that suggestion.. the "/" saves us from collision with > > both the hostname and the interface name-space. And I suppose > > we can now drop the "-i" argument to addr commands since we embed > > the interface in "label". Thoughts? > > Auto-assigning with letters seems possible but a bit awkward to me. For > instance, what happens when `z' is reached: do we start with `aa'? `A'? > I'm also wonder how intuitive this behavior would be to administrators in > non-English-speaking countries. Further, if we do things right, commands > that administratively expose logical interfaces should be part of history > in a few years and ipadm will have a long and bright future, but will > forever have this eccentricity. For those reasons, I still prefer the > numeric approach, though I do prefer Erik's suggestion to the original > label proposal.
but why do we need to auto-assign? Why can't we mandate that the object provided to "create-addr" must be of the form <interface>/<string>, where <string> is constructed from some well-defined set of chars (e.g., [a-z][A-Z][0-9]'-') That also satisfies the unconstrained "vanity name for address" wish. > As for dropping the "-i": indeed, and given that an address object is > always tied to a particular interface (now that we've got IPMP sorted) I > much prefer having the interface name be part of the address object name. sure. --Sowmini
