On Monday, 08/20/2001 at 11:15 ZE2, Francis Dupont
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In your previous mail you wrote:
>
> > => I prefer real names than xxxNNN. Can we get both (i.e. a config
file
> > plus a default translation rule)?
>
> I do not object to introducing real names, but I'd like to leave that
> part as implementation dependent, and just define the formal aliases
> (like "link2") in the scope architecture draft.
>
> => I don't understand your problem there: I prefer fe80::xxxx%eth0 to
> fe80::xxxx%link12, I believe you too...
I also prefer eth0 over link12. Using the names used to define the zones
(either the default interface names or actual zone definitions) seems to be
more useful than generating a somewhat arbitrary name and displaying that.
How is the user supposed to correlate link12 back to the actual eth0
interface, anyway? I imagine another external or display could be used,
but this would seem to introduce yet another step for a user to identify
the particular interface/zone in question.
Roy Brabson
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
