> > Emphatically agreed. Let's not burn our resources on this. > > Unless you're saying you don't want to spend even the time to discuss > it, I don't know what resources you mean. I'm talking about a fairly > small documentation change, and maybe removing one or two lines of code, > if they even have been written already. (IP itself already fails fairly > cleanly when there is no numeric suffix in an interface name.)
If we're not going to make IP work, and we're not going to test that other DLPI-based applications work, then I don't see any point in removing the requirement for a trailing digit. One of the philosophies of Clearview is to make the administrative model more consistent. Being able to create link names that only work with specific DLPI consumers is a step away from that -- and a pointless step, given the other higher-level restrictions on the format of DLPI names (e.g., allowing special tokens such as `:' would prove disastrous for IP). All that said, there is nothing in the Vanity Naming administrative model that requires the use of a trailing digit -- if the restriction needs to be lifted in the future, Vanity Naming will certainly not prove an impediment. But for all of the reasons already stated, we have no plans whatsoever to take this tangential (and IMHO misguided) work on as part of Clearview. -- meem _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
