Re: interface renaming

[Josh Elsasser <jre@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:27:22AM +0100, Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai wrote:
> -On [20031101 19:52], Matthew Dillon (dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> >    I think for DragonFly we should leave the naming as it is.  For all intents
> >    and purposes ethernet interfaces are 'hidden' and 'abstracted' from the
> >    user be virtue of the route table already, we don't need to abstract them
> >    further by naming them all the same!
> 
> Amen.
> 
> It might just be a feeling, but to me it just feels so wrong to have
> only ethN devices.   I actually like the xlN, fxpN, and so on.
> 
> We might ened to check it it makes sense for all devices though.

I don't think anyone really wants an ethX naming scheme.  What I want
is just the ability to rename or alias an interface name.  I can't
count the number of times that I've upgraded or swapped out a network
card (or motherboard with onboard ethernet) and had to fix all my
configs.  I would love the ability to just call my interfaces "int"
and "ext" or something in rc.conf, ipf, and other configs for
miscellaneous daemons and scripts.

 -jre