>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:25:34 -0400,
>>>>> "Roy Brabson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 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".)
> True, if two interfaces are in the same link-local zone then the interface
> name will not uniquely identify the zone. But the current scoping
> architecture draft indicates that configuration is required to identify
> that two interfaces are in the same zone, and the name used in this
> configuration can be used for display of the zone name.
I don't see such indication of the draft...which text of the draft do
you really mean?
> I would prefer to use the textual representation which matches what is used
> in configuring the zones. It just makes more sense to echo back what a
> user placed in a configuration file instead of displaying an arbitrary
> value dynamically created by a given stack. How exactly would a user
> correlate an arbitrary value such as "link1" or "site5" to the given zone
> which they want to use, anyway? This would seem to be the equivalent of
> telling a user they need to "guess" the correct interface ID without
> proving if_nametoindex() to perform the translation of the configured
> interface name to the corresponding interface ID.
I admit that "link1" is not user-friendly. But please note that the
textual representation described in the scoping architecture draft
basically defines numerical zone IDs only, which are also
"user-unfriendly". But the draft also allows implementations to
introduce more intuitive, more user-friendly format such as interface
names for links, assuming one-to-one mapping between interfaces and
links.
Since the notion of "names" can be different among implementations, I
don't think the architecture draft should define the details of
"names". The problem with the 4+28 split model, however, is that
numerical identifiers would even annoy users (not just be
user-unfriendly), because we'd see IDs like "1342177281" (which is
0x50000001, i.e. a site ID of site index 1). So, "site1" is just a
readable alias for "1342177281", which is a different kind of notion
from "names".
Again, I don't oppose to introducing "names" in each implementation.
However, I'd stick to the numerical identifiers and their aliases for
readability, as the bottom line 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
