Re: [Take 2] Re: RFC: interface description
- From: sthaug@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:40:22 +0200 (CEST)
From my perspective, putting it in a separate db outside the kernel
kind of defeats the purpose. I thought the first patches had the
right idea. though for me the current ability to rename an interface
is good enough. I mean is you can cal your interface "Sydney0" or
"Melbourne2" that is really enough..
Having read the discussion, I agree that the description should be
in the kernel. However, being a router geek the ability to rename
an interface to "Sydney0" or "Melbourne2" is not at all enough. For
the routers & switches I work with we really want a description of
at least 50 characters - and it's important to be able to include
space.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@xxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Take 2] Re: RFC: interface description
- From: Randy Bush
- Re: [Take 2] Re: RFC: interface description
- References:
- [Take 2] Re: RFC: interface description
- From: Xin LI
- Re: [Take 2] Re: RFC: interface description
- From: Andre Oppermann
- Re: [Take 2] Re: RFC: interface description
- From: Julian Elischer
- [Take 2] Re: RFC: interface description
- Prev by Date: Re: [Take 2] Re: RFC: interface description
- Next by Date: Re: [Take 2] Re: RFC: interface description
- Previous by thread: Re: [Take 2] Re: RFC: interface description
- Next by thread: Re: [Take 2] Re: RFC: interface description
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|