James Carlson wrote: > ... > >I'll work something out and come back with a more concrete >suggestion. I was hoping that someone else (L2 filtering?) had faced >the same issue before and had already planned out a solution. > >
We've been cracking our heads on another problem: the desire to use link names (rather than mac names) of interfaces as the administrative interface, the lack of a mapping between the two and how to overcome that. More specifically, the question being debated is whether or not to allow "renamed" links to be used with their "vanity" name or their "real" name. It sounds like you want to take the approach of ignoring the vanity name and only use the mac name - which makes life easier. What are your thoughts about whether or not the "vanity" name is used or not? "policy routing" for layer 2 is not something that we've been focused on at present (which is what I expect would tie in with the work you're doing here.) Darren _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
