>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 12:08:21 -0700,
>>>>> "Dave Thaler" <[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".)
> 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 :)
Probably, but even so, we'll still lose the uniqueness of zone IDs.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
