I agree that current model is too simple. I see two possible options to represent network interfaces in more details.
1. Separate physical and logical interfaces completely. Then object tree could look like this:
Node
+-- Physical interface 1 (MAC address)
+-- Physical interface 2 (MAC address)
+-- IP interface 1 (IP address) (reference to physical interface)
+-- IPv6 interface 1 (IPv6 address) (reference to physical interface)
and so on.
2. Try to build a logical-to-physical hierarchy, like this:
Node
+-- IP interface 1 (IP address)
+-- Physical Interface 1 (MAC address)
+-- IP interface 2 (IP address)
+-- Physical Interface 1 (MAC address)
+-- IPv6 interface 1 (IPv6 address)
+-- Physical Interface 1 (MAC address)
+-- IP interface 3 (IP address)
+-- Team 1
+-- Physical Interface 2 (MAC address)
+-- Physical Interface 3 (MAC address)
What do you think?
Best regards,
Victor
1. Separate physical and logical interfaces completely. Then object tree could look like this:
Node
+-- Physical interface 1 (MAC address)
+-- Physical interface 2 (MAC address)
+-- IP interface 1 (IP address) (reference to physical interface)
+-- IPv6 interface 1 (IPv6 address) (reference to physical interface)
and so on.
2. Try to build a logical-to-physical hierarchy, like this:
Node
+-- IP interface 1 (IP address)
+-- Physical Interface 1 (MAC address)
+-- IP interface 2 (IP address)
+-- Physical Interface 1 (MAC address)
+-- IPv6 interface 1 (IPv6 address)
+-- Physical Interface 1 (MAC address)
+-- IP interface 3 (IP address)
+-- Team 1
+-- Physical Interface 2 (MAC address)
+-- Physical Interface 3 (MAC address)
What do you think?
Best regards,
Victor