On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 15:44 -0800, Mike Ditto wrote: > Unless you're saying you don't want to spend even the time to discuss > it, I don't know what resources you mean. 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.)
Mike, how will it be clean? The administrator will create a link, and then sometime later attempt to plumb an IP interface on that link. The latter will fail with some error, and the administrator will be left wondering what is wrong with the system? If the administrator is somehow clued in at that point that the interface name is invalid, he'll have to go back and rename the interface. What would be the point of frustrating the customer in this way? If we decide at some point that such vanity names would be useful, then I would argue that we should at least ensure that all of our software can handle such a change to reduce customer confusion. If we could do the same for 3rd party software, then we should do that as well. However, I don't yet see how the benefit of going this extra step outweighs the drawbacks that have been discussed. -Seb _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
