On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:05:37 +0200 Claudio Jeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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). there is one smaaaaall thing one cannot do with interface groups: you cannot assign address to your interface. > 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. OK then. -- With best regards, Gregory Edigarov
