[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Specifying names for tap interfaces
On 26/06/2012 7:10 PM, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 01:25:11PM +1000, Darren Reed wrote:
>>> But I don't want "proxy0". I want "proxy". Or some other name with
>>> more than 16 chars, in some case.
>> It doesn't work.
> This is why user-settable names are not so great.
>> Network interfaces should have one name that is used by all of
>> the regular TCP/IP tools. That name needs to fit in with the
>> expectations of various tools that exist today. It also needs
>> to fit in with what administrators will expect to use but most
>> importantly, the name used is the same for both input and output.
> This is where I disagree. I don't propose to replace the name with
> something else, I propose to add an alternate lookup mechanism.
An alias like this has no place being supported by the kernel.
Any model for names associated with network interfaces must
revolve around the same name being used on output as on input.
Whether it be virtual devices, device layering, cloned devices
or real devices, there should be only one name that is used for
it on both command lines, inputs and outputs.
The addition of extra names or aliases that are used in some
circumstances and not others complicates the interfaces for
NetBSD rather than makes them simpler and easier to use.
Main Index |
Thread Index |