Re: [Take 2] Re: RFC: interface description
- From: Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:29:00 +0900
From my perspective, putting it in a separate db outside the kernelHaving read the discussion, I agree that the description should be
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..
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.
also a router geek. but for the sake of simplicity, i am quite willing
to s/\ /_/ or whatever.
randy
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- 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
- Re: [Take 2] Re: RFC: interface description
- From: sthaug
- [Take 2] Re: RFC: interface description
- Prev by Date: Re: [Take 2] Re: RFC: interface description
- Next by Date: Re: bin/137841: [patch] wpa_supplicant(8) cannot verify SHA256 signed certificates
- Previous by thread: Re: [Take 2] Re: RFC: interface description
- Next by thread: NAT-T patch for 7-STABLE
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|