Sorry for the delayed response, I'm just back from a vacation.
>>>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 11:15:04 +0200,
>>>>> Francis Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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...
Well, as a developer and a user of the KAME IPv6 stack, I prefer
fe80::xxxx%eth0 to fe80::xxxs%link12. The implementation (at least
currently) assumes one-to-one mapping between interfaces and links,
which is natural in a normal operation, and thus eth0 should be more
intuitive than link12.
However, from a stricter architectural point of view, using interface
names as link IDs can be rather confusing, because two different
interfaces can belong to a single link. Also, the naming convention
might differ among implementations.
So, as a co-author of the scoping architecture draft, I'd rather stick
to the artificial notation (i.e. "link10", "site5", etc) as the
"official" textual representation, which will be described in the draft.
Of course, each implementation may introduce more readable and more
intuitive "names" (e.g. eth0) as zone IDs, based on its own naming
convention.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
