Jinmei writes:
> > 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".)
I'd point out that with the "flexible 4+28" method, specifying "eth0" in
place of "link12" would work, regardless of whether there was 1 or
multiple interfaces attached to link12. Another advantage of the
flexible method :)
-Dave
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
