On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 03:52:52PM +0300, Gregory Edigarov wrote: > On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:34:12 -0400 > Simon Perreault <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 2010-04-19 08:31, Gregory Edigarov wrote: > > > sometimes it is better and necessary to have interfaces named under > > > one standartized name like fether0... fetherN for example > > > > Why? And how can groups not accomplish that? > > > > Simon > suppose you need to configure some interfaces of different makes: > em0, bge0, rl0, ath0 > to have name like: > ether0, ether1, ether2, ether3... > so you may plug in another card instead of ether2 for example. > without interface renaming you will end up rewriting the whole seciton > of your interface configuration script, while with it - you will only > have to change one line: > ifconfig bge0 name ether0 >
You can achive the same thing with interface groups. (Ok you can not name them ether0 since a group may not end in a digit but the rest works like a charm). We decided multiple times against renaming of interfaces since the consequences introduced are normaly not fully understood. Just overwriting if_xname is just the tip of the iceberg. Some concerns were already mentioned in this thread. -- :wq Claudio
