> In your previous mail you wrote:
>
> I don't know if there is a requirement for the stability of ids
> that has bearing on this suggestion.
>
> => I believe there should be none because the stability requirement
> should be for id names, not id values. Of course, we should recommend
> to use always names too.
Notice that I did *not* talk about stability across reboots.
My issue is whether it is ok or not to have the ids change
on a whim while the machine is *running* (e.g. due to using hotplugging to
add or remove NICs).
If we allow this rate of change it seems like an application
needs to do the name to id translation each time it is using
an id for instance each time it is sending a packet.
Is that really what we want?
Erik
> That way ID(link2) = 2 even though interface #2 is gone.
>
> => the real issue is to get ID(link2) = 2 even though interface #2
> is now affected to link333... Names are the solution there too!
>
> Regards
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> PS: I believe our colleague Jinmei is waiting for a decision between
> options A, B and C before producing a document... Please help him!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
