Indeed, encapsulating a port speed in its name offers some convenience in show commands, configuration groups, and interface-ranges; I would say the value there is non-zero.
Going beyond that, how about logical tunnels (lt-), GRE interfaces(gr- and gre), loopback interfaces (lo), Multiservices (ms-), SONET/SDH (so-) and the various assortment? Ref: https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/interfaces- interface-naming-overview.html This page seems to say that aside from PTX routers, where et- can be 10/40/100GE, et- == 100GE. We know that's not the case as on MX204 and MX10k3, et- can be 40/100GE. I guess they might update this page sometime.. Consider operators whose interface descriptions don't encapsulate the relevant information, or worse still - whose operational interfaces may not have interface descriptions at all. In those cases it is *incredibly* useful to identify interface type by interface name. I would say identifying speed by name is an extension of that. I don't see that moving to a generic prefix such as inf- is for the greater good. So now we have ge-, xe-, and et- meaning physical Ethernet interfaces - and depending on your hardware, optics, and config - *likely* 1GE/10GE/100GE, respectively ... but, maybe not. Now with the speed variances, at least we can still say they're physical interfaces. Br, Niall -----Original Message----- From: juniper-nsp [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chuck Anderson Sent: 05 April 2018 20:31 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP? Back-in-the-day we had fe-x/x/x for 10/100 Mbps ports. Now we have ge-x/x/x that can take a 100 Mbps SFP, but the name doesn't change to fe-x/x/x AFAIK. So there is precedent for the names not changing when the speed changes. But I do like having the ability to match ports based on speed, e.g. find all "uplink" ports by assuming ge-* are access ports and xe-* are uplinks. Patterns can be used within configuration groups and interface-ranges. On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 01:38:46PM +0000, Nelson, Brian wrote: > Port-foo is so archaic. > It's an interface, inf-x/x/x would be more germane. > > Brian > > -----Original Message----- > From: juniper-nsp [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Ola Thoresen > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 3:59 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX204 and copper SFP? > > On 05. april 2018 10:44, Saku Ytti wrote: > > > Since of the fathers. > > > > 'Cisco did it'. > > > > I also see no value in it. > > Don't we all love that "linux" changed from eth0, eth1, eth2... to beautiful stuff like wwp0s20u4 and enp0s25... > > Just call them port-x/x/x and be done with it. > > > /Ola (T) _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
_______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
