Re: Specifying names for tap interfaces

[Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:25:50AM +1000, Darren Reed wrote:
> 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.
> >> Always.
> > 
> > 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.

I disagree. You don't have to use the extra names/aliases if
you don't want to.

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--