* Jiri B [2013-03-14 16:32]:
> Situation: onboard network card is broken and was used in OS.
> You just plug additional network card, and disable the old
> one via `config' (is this right?). The "policy" in your
> setup is the order of network cards make some logic:
> * 1st backup/installation
> *
On 2013-03-15, Lars Hansson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Jiri B wrote:
>
>> I'm aware of both. So what is this renaming of ifaces good
>> for?
>
>
> On Windows it has it's advantages because by default you get stupid and
> unhelpful names like "Local Area Connection X".
> It's prett
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Jiri B wrote:
> I'm aware of both. So what is this renaming of ifaces good
> for?
On Windows it has it's advantages because by default you get stupid and
unhelpful names like "Local Area Connection X".
It's pretty nice to be able to rename it to something usefu
On 03/14/13 20:15, Alexey E. Suslikov wrote:
> Jiri B devio.us> writes:
>
>> I'm aware of both. So what is this renaming of ifaces good
>> for? Like /etc/mactab in Linux... I've thought I have usage
>> for this but then I discovered I did bad testing and reorder
>> of nics was my issue in RHEVM/k
Jiri B devio.us> writes:
> I'm aware of both. So what is this renaming of ifaces good
> for? Like /etc/mactab in Linux... I've thought I have usage
> for this but then I discovered I did bad testing and reorder
> of nics was my issue in RHEVM/kvm world.
hey, this is OpenBSD, which is neither for
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:31:29AM -0400, Jiri B wrote:
> Situation: onboard network card is broken and was used in OS.
> You just plug additional network card, and disable the old
> one via `config' (is this right?). The "policy" in your
> setup is the order of network cards make some logic:
> * 1
On 03/14/2013 11:31 AM, Jiri B wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:17:50PM +0100, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 07:12:08AM -0400, Jiri B wrote:
just for curiosity, is it planned for future?
I can't just now think about real usability...
Me neither. For most use cases I c
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:17:50PM +0100, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 07:12:08AM -0400, Jiri B wrote:
>
> > just for curiosity, is it planned for future?
> >
> > I can't just now think about real usability...
>
> Me neither. For most use cases I can think of, interface
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 02:10:40PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:
>
> > Me neither. For most use cases I can think of, interface groups (a feature
> > we
> > do have, see ifconfig(8) and possibly other references elsewhere) will give
> > you what others have i
Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:
> Me neither. For most use cases I can think of, interface groups (a feature we
> do have, see ifconfig(8) and possibly other references elsewhere) will give
> you what others have implemented interface renaming for.
There are also interface descriptions.
--
Chris
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 07:12:08AM -0400, Jiri B wrote:
> just for curiosity, is it planned for future?
>
> I can't just now think about real usability...
Me neither. For most use cases I can think of, interface groups (a feature we
do have, see ifconfig(8) and possibly other references elsewh
11 matches
Mail list logo
