On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 10:00:12PM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > Why is the option named agrport and not agrif?
> 
> i named it so because:
> 	- port is an lacp term.
> 	- agrif sounds like agr(4) interface itsself to me.

I made up agrif because it was consistent with vlanif. I agree that it could
be confusing. However, "port" in combination with vlan(4) would be equally
confusing. That and the concept of a virtual interface that depends on an
underlying physical interface was the reason why I chose the notion of
"parent" interfaces.

> > Furthermore, would it be possible to just have something like ifconfig
> > parentif or just ifconfig parent? I find it cumbersome to have 3 different
> > methods to configure what is essentially the same concept.
> 
> i personally dislike the name "parent" because i'm always confused by
> its ambiguity.  ie. it isn't clear to me which interface is called "parent".
> isn't it the case for native english speakers unlike me?

I hadn't thought of that because it's not ambiguous to me. "Parent" indicates
something that another something depends on. IMHO, this fits all of vlan(4),
pppoe(4), agr(4), bridge(4) pretty well. It could be called something else as
long as it's consistent. ifconfig ${if}if vs. ifconfig ${if}port vs. ${if}ctl
vs. ${if}config[1] is ugly IMHO.

Regards,

ND

[1] brconfig isn't even "consistently inconsistent" because it's not named
bridgeconfig. Call me anal.