James Carlson wrote On 02/20/06 11:56,:
>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).
>
That's why I want to change this now, while we can. Applications
that are changed to use libdlpi will not have such assumptions
built into them if we make it clear in the documentation what is
and isn't legitimate for the application to assume.
>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."
>
>
That's an issue for IP interfaces only and I agree there may be software
that has trouble, which would restrict users to using only conventional
interface names with IP if they want to use such software.
>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.
>
No, those applications can not use vanity names anyway. They are not
affected by my suggestion.
-=] Mike [=-
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
