>>>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 08:01:20 -0400,
>>>>> "Roy Brabson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > => 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.
When we can assume one-to-one mapping between interfaces and links,
that's true. However, if two (or more) different interfaces belong
to a single link, using interface names as link IDs would be rather
confusing (we'll lose the uniqueness of the ID, or we'll have to care
about which interface is "primary" in the link".)
As I said in a previous message, I do not necessarily object to using
"names" as an implementation dependent convention. I just would like
to stick to "link1" or "site5" in the official textual representation
in the scoping architecture draft.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
