Morten Brekkevold wrote, On 25-09-2006 10:34:
Should we try to stay with a numbering scheme compatible with the old one for the 3.1.1 release, and wait for interface names in the UI before we change the port numbers? This might delay the 3.1.1 release even further, as we need to make changes to the standing bugfix before the release.
Is it okay to renumber ports in the 3.1.1 release, as long as interface names become more prominent in the UI in the 3.2 or 3.3 release? Should we prioritize more prominent interface names in the 3.2 release, or is it okay to wait until the 3.3 release?
Now's your chance to influence these decisions, before further implementation takes place.
The only feedback I received on this was off-list and verbal (except for Peder's slight misunderstanding of the ifName/ifAlias issue). The result is that I've rewritten the port numbering algorithm to be slightly more compatible with the one used in 3.1.0.
This means that port numbers will be interpreted by way of ifName/ifDescr values on Cisco devices, instead of using the portIfIndex OID. Module numbers will still be interpreted using portIfIndex though, so on Cisco devices employing the submodule paradigm, or otherwise "reusing" port numbers on interfaces, some interfaces will have seemingly weird port numbers in an attempt to resolve this conflict. This will typically only affect GigabitEthernet interfaces where they co-exist with other interface types on the same module.