On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:26 AM, Ermal Luçi<[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Chris Buechler<[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Ermal Luçi<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> To me this is a hack and not a feature. >>> There is a better way to do this things than kludge things here and >>> there in the code. The right fix was proposed once and not everybody >>> liked the POLA breaking. >> >> I don't recall that discussion (and I'll admit I didn't have time to >> read the patch before I replied). >> >> What do you consider the "right fix", Ermal? > > It was the proposal to name all the interfaces with a common name and > not following the FreeBSD by product naming(at least in embedded). > This would give a uniform interface name on different products and > would make at least embedded a no pain installing/running since it > would just boot into the webgui! >
Oh, I don't know if that's a good approach, that definitely changes to something that people aren't accustomed to. I don't have any objection to the approach Tim has mentioned here, auto-assigning if the assignment prompt times out. The challenge is doing it in a predictable manner so you don't have to guess what to plug in where. Maybe it auto-assigns the interface with link as LAN, and we instruct users to boot up when using auto-assignment with only LAN plugged in. Then it's easy to know what WAN is if you only have two NICs. If you have more than that, you can check the assignments after getting into the GUI on LAN. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
