[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Instance numbers as an administrative interface are so 20th century. > "Vanity naming" should be about meaningful administrator-chosen > labels, not about mirroring internal IP data structures.
Digging up the same thread we had a couple of years ago about this very topic might be helpful. We were able to find several applications (I believe GateD was one of them) that would fall over dead if interfaces didn't have the expected naming conventions. I still don't get it. I see no point to doing this because the field itself is far too inflexible to go where you want -- there's no i18n, no expectation of embedded spaces, and no room to write anything comprehensible. What's the point? -- James Carlson, KISS Network <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
