Mike Ditto writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Emphatically agreed. Let's not burn our resources on this. > > Unless you're saying you don't want to spend even the time to discuss > it, I don't know what resources you mean.
No, it's not that, though it has already been discussed extensively more than once. The "resources" involved would be finding and repairing all the applications that are damaged by the change. There are still some applications known to be damaged by "unusual" interface names such as "e1000g" -- because they were erroneously assuming that the _first_ digit in the interface name would be the instance number (meaning that these broken applications see driver name "e" and instance "1000" and are unusable on platforms with that driver). We would be adding others such as GateD and very likely some support applications to that carnage by walking away from the long-standing BSD tradition for interface naming. I see no point. Using "foobar" as a name is to me no clearer or more usable than using "foobar0." Worse, doing this would mean that applications using Style 2 would be unable to describe these interfaces at all. We'd be introducing another wart to the implementation. There's an extensive downside and no benefit I can see. > I'm talking about a fairly > small documentation change, and maybe removing one or two lines of code, > if they even have been written already. (IP itself already fails fairly > cleanly when there is no numeric suffix in an interface name.) It's not a matter of the small code change or the documentation. -- James Carlson, KISS Network <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
