Peter Memishian wrote:
> 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.
Are you implying that the intended use for "dladm rename" is to enable
me to continue using the name "bge0" to refer to network X even though
the card may change to ipge or nge or hme or...rather than to support
people creating "swan0" and use that, irrespective of the hardware?
Darren
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
