> > >> >>>> * Vanity naming >>>> >>>> Today, the network names are tied to the underlying network >>>> hardware >>>> (e.g., bge0, ce0). Because configuring the system always requires >>>> network interface names to be stored in a wide range of >>>> configuration >>>> files, being able to give a meaningful and consistent vanity >>>> name to >>>> network interfaces will make network administration much >>>> easier. More >>>> importantly, vanity naming will prove especially useful for >>>> machine >>>> migration and Dynamic Reconfiguration. >>>> >>> >>> I wonder if there is a better way to word this paragraph. When I >>> read it the first time, I thought "How would giving an interface a >>> meaningful vanity help with interface names scattered through a wide >>> variety of files? Wouldn't we have to keep track of each instance >>> in each file?". After thinking about it, I could see how having a >>> vanity name would help (i.e. indirection). It feels like you're >>> missing a step in explaining how vanity naming would be helpful. >>> >> Right, vanity naming does not help to track those configuration >> files. But carefully-chose names can help to make the configuration >> meaningful. Is that not clear? Which step do you think I missed? >> > > On my first read through your paragraph I didn't understand how giving > an interface a meaningful name helped an administrator in managing the > configuration when the configuration is stored across numerous files. > Since we're not managing or helping him track those files, is it > because it becomes easier to search for what files contain an > interface's configuration?
No. > Is it easier to implement an indirection layer? What do you mean an indirection layer? For what? - Cathy
