> The issue I'm pointing out is that the interface names already have > complicated relationships to the configuration files, and adding a new > way to have a relationship is yet more complication. > > I know that the dladm rename model is that things within dladm remain > consistent under rename, but that you just have to know what you're > doing outside of dladm. I don't disagree with that model, as it's > obviously the most flexible.
I think we are saying the same thing, but just in case: the intent of the dladm "rename" model is to allow administrators to keep their link names unchanged despite changes to their topology or hardware, rather than to encourage them to rename. We will of course need to make this very clear in the documentation. > If there are, though, useful ways to avoid creating new things that > may break under a purely "vanity" renaming, and thus avoid service > calls, that might be good. Agreed. -- meem _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
