On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 09:26:42AM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> In message <200203061422.g26EM5m01992@grok.beer.org>, Herb Peyerl writes:
> >Martin Husemann <martin@netbsd.org>  wrote:
> > > I prefer a complete rototill, getting rid of the I4B prefix and cleaning up
> > > some names:
> > > 
> > >   /dev/i4b	-> /dev/isdn		# ISDN master device
> > >   /dev/i4bctl	-> /dev/isdnctl		# ISDN controll
> > >   /dev/i4btrc	-> /dev/isdntrc		# ISDN trace
> > >   /dev/i4brbch	-> /dev/isdnbchan	# ISDN B-channel (isdnraw?)
> > >   /dev/i4btel	-> /dev/isdntel		# ISDN telephone

Yeah, good idea.

> > > 
> > >   isp		-> ippp			# ISDN ppp
> > >   ipr		-> irip			# ISDN raw IP (???)
> > > 
> > > Any opinions? Bricks?

Sounds good for me.

> >No real preference or opinion, but if you're going for consistency,
> >then shouldn't you be doing:
> >
> >     isp		-> isdnppp			# ISDN ppp
> >     ipr		-> isdnrip			# ISDN raw IP (???)

Hmm, I first had the same idea, but after thinking about it a bit more,
I withdrew it and I think we should the names which Martin proposed.

This are interface names and not device nodes.
It striks me to have such long interface names.

> Or /dev/isn/ppp, /dev/idsn/ctl, etc.?

I don't think we need a new sub directory for 5 device nodes.
Okay, its more then 5 since we have 0 and 1 for i4btrc, i4brbch and i4btel.

Bernd