Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

On 25 Apr 2008, at 10:33, Alex Leverington wrote: > > For clarity, it seems that this would be to make naming consistent. > netN doesn't address ambiguity of interface names, but vanity names > does. > > Why does the picture have to have netN in parenthesis? It doesn't "have" to of course, it

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

On Apr 24, 2008, at 6:18 AM, Calum Benson wrote: > > On 23 Apr 2008, at 22:41, Kyle McDonald wrote: > >> I need to think about it more, but I think there may be value not in >> naming interfaces by shipset as we currently do but by 'type' (wired, >> wireless, WAN, etc.) It probably deserves more

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 13:12 -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote: > * Sebastien Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-24 19:51]: > > Stephen, > > > > On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 09:56 -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote: > > > * Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-24 16:44]: > > > > However, it might be interesting to have

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Stephen Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Sebastien Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-24 19:51]: > > > > Stephen, > > > > On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 09:56 -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote: > > > * Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-24 16:44]: > > > > However, it mig

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

* Sebastien Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-24 19:51]: > Stephen, > > On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 09:56 -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote: > > * Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-24 16:44]: > > > However, it might be interesting to have a tool post-install that let > > > you "rename" all the interfaces

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

Stephen, On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 09:56 -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote: > * Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-24 16:44]: > > However, it might be interesting to have a tool post-install that let > > you "rename" all the interfaces based on a policy. > > Agree strongly. "Agree strongly" to me m

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

* Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-24 16:44]: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Jason J. W. Williams > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It seems to me Linux folks would prefer ethX naming, and Solaris folks > > don't have a problem with the current naming (although trying to > > remember

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 11:43 -0500, Shawn Walker wrote: > I think wherever possible we should avoid options like this during > installation. I think the folks developing the installation software would agree. > > I would rather pick "the best overall solution" that leaves some folks > unhappy th

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Jason J. W. Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems to me Linux folks would prefer ethX naming, and Solaris folks > don't have a problem with the current naming (although trying to > remember that nge and nxge are not even remotely related is kind of > ar

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 17:57 -0400, Kyle McDonald wrote: > Sebastien Roy wrote: > > I agree with that assertion. The information Kyle is looking for > > shouldn't be encoded in the IP interface name, but rather be verbosely > > output by the NWAM notification popups. Something akin to: > > > > "To

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

It seems to me Linux folks would prefer ethX naming, and Solaris folks don't have a problem with the current naming (although trying to remember that nge and nxge are not even remotely related is kind of archaic). In that respect, it would almost seem worthwhile to have an option on a clean Indiana

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:07 AM, Andrew Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Gerdts wrote: > > On a V490 with a QGE (e.g XA) installed before Solaris is > > installed, ce0 - ce3 will be the QGE and the onboard interfaces will > > be ce4 and ce5. > > > > Oh, OK. When I asked about this (al

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

Mike Gerdts wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:53 AM, Andrew Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Peter Memishian wrote: >> > The order is unspecified but will not change after initial enumeration. >> > Today, if you have two e1000g's on a given machine, they will enumerate as >> > e1000g0/e100

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:53 AM, Andrew Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter Memishian wrote: > > The order is unspecified but will not change after initial enumeration. > > Today, if you have two e1000g's on a given machine, they will enumerate as > > e1000g0/e1000g1 (and if the hardware

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

On 24 Apr 2008, at 12:18, Calum Benson wrote: > > > Probably need some further clarification on that mockup, as it's a little out of context: - "Wired" and "Wired 1" are the van

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

On 23 Apr 2008, at 22:41, Kyle McDonald wrote: > I need to think about it more, but I think there may be value not in > naming interfaces by shipset as we currently do but by 'type' (wired, > wireless, WAN, etc.) It probably deserves more discussion, but I can > imagine, especially with NWAM popp

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

Peter Memishian wrote: > The order is unspecified but will not change after initial enumeration. > Today, if you have two e1000g's on a given machine, they will enumerate as > e1000g0/e1000g1 (and if the hardware folks did things right, that > enumeration will match the "0" and "1" labels on the ba

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

> I'm clearly in the minority here, but in what way is something > anonymous like "net0" any more intelligible than "e1000g2"? The point is that it's not tied to the whim of the computer manufacturer. > I see no advantage here. I've been lumbered with this sort of > random naming scheme else

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

> I think hiding the physical name is right. Today we use often the > physical name to get information about the usable feature of a driver. > So if it's planned to get a GUI to show what interface is really behind > e.g. net0 a good (and maybe more useful) extension to that would be to >

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:29 AM, Peter Memishian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Folks, > > As some of you may be aware, Clearview Nemo Unification and Vanity Naming > integrated into Nevada build 83. Among other advantages, the "vanity > naming" feature allows us to finally[1] move away from t

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

Sebastien Roy wrote: > On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 17:46 -0400, Dave Miner wrote: > >> Kyle McDonald wrote: >> >>> Lurie wrote: >>> This is imho a case where there's place for improvement, instead of just copying what Linux has, so I think it should be net0, net1, ... >>

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 17:46 -0400, Dave Miner wrote: > Kyle McDonald wrote: > > Lurie wrote: > >> This is imho a case where there's place for improvement, instead of just > >> copying what Linux has, so I think it should be net0, net1, ... > >> > > > > I need to think about it more, but I thin

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Dave Miner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kyle McDonald wrote: > > Lurie wrote: > >> This is imho a case where there's place for improvement, instead of just > copying what Linux has, so I think it should be net0, net1, ... > >> > > > > I need to think about it

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Lurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is imho a case where there's place for improvement, instead of just > copying what Linux has, so I think it should be net0, net1, ... The point is not copying Linux, the point is making it easier for GNU/Linux users. The net

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

Kyle McDonald wrote: > Lurie wrote: >> This is imho a case where there's place for improvement, instead of just >> copying what Linux has, so I think it should be net0, net1, ... >> > > I need to think about it more, but I think there may be value not in > naming interfaces by shipset as we c

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

Lurie wrote: > This is imho a case where there's place for improvement, instead of just > copying what Linux has, so I think it should be net0, net1, ... > I need to think about it more, but I think there may be value not in naming interfaces by shipset as we currently do but by 'type' (wired

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Lurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is imho a case where there's place for improvement, instead > of just copying what Linux has, so I think it should be net0, net1, ... +1, we should have a better layout for networking. -- Ricardo Lanziano 1DB1 3F01 E0E5 CB7

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

This is imho a case where there's place for improvement, instead of just copying what Linux has, so I think it should be net0, net1, ... -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http:/

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: > > > "Brilliant!" > > > > > > +1 > > > > > If you ask me, this is a prime opportunity to make things a little > > friendlier for folks coming from the GNU/Linux world. > > > > We could name the inter

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

Shawn Walker wrote: > "Brilliant!" > +1 > If you ask me, this is a prime opportunity to make things a little > friendlier for folks coming from the GNU/Linux world. > > We could name the interfaces eth0, eth1, eth2, eth3, etc. > I'd prefer "net" over "eth" because many common networks aren

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

Would it be possible for an upgrade not to rename to the new nomenclature, but a clean install would? With more and more configuration being moved into dladm, it also seems its getting easier to create an auto-migration facility for the nomenclature? Also, having generic names would make it much e

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

Peter Memishian wrote: > In Nevada, backward compatibility concerns have stopped us from changing > the default naming convention, so one is still stuck with unintelligible > names like e1000g2. So given that this can't happen until the second release of Indiana, will that also have compatibilit

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

+1 -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Michal Bielicki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 23 Apr 2008, at 15:12, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Peter Memishian > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > As some of you may be aware, Clearview Nemo Un

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

On 23 Apr 2008, at 15:12, Shawn Walker wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Peter Memishian > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Folks, >> >> As some of you may be aware, Clearview Nemo Unification and Vanity >> Naming >> integrated into Nevada build 83. Among other advantages, the "vanity

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Peter Memishian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Folks, > > As some of you may be aware, Clearview Nemo Unification and Vanity Naming > integrated into Nevada build 83. Among other advantages, the "vanity > naming" feature allows us to finally[1] move away from

Re: [indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

Peter, I think hiding the physical name is right. Today we use often the physical name to get information about the usable feature of a driver. So if it's planned to get a GUI to show what interface is really behind e.g. net0 a good (and maybe more useful) extension to that would be to list the

[indiana-discuss] simplified network interface names for indiana?

Folks, As some of you may be aware, Clearview Nemo Unification and Vanity Naming integrated into Nevada build 83. Among other advantages, the "vanity naming" feature allows us to finally[1] move away from the current chipset alphabet soup we have for network interface names, and instead standard