Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:29:00 +0900 From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> To: sthaug@nethelp.no Cc: qing.li@bluecoat.com, brooks@freebsd.org, d@delphij.net, freebsd-net@freebsd.org, qingli@freebsd.org, andre@freebsd.org, bu7cher@yandex.ru, julian@elischer.org, bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net Subject: Re: [Take 2] Re: RFC: interface description Message-ID: <m28whkzgv7.wl%randy@psg.com> In-Reply-To: <20090815.214022.41662662.sthaug@nethelp.no> References: <4A8601CE.5030205@delphij.net> <4A86C782.5030808@freebsd.org> <4A86F2BE.4050203@elischer.org> <20090815.214022.41662662.sthaug@nethelp.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> 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. also a router geek. but for the sake of simplicity, i am quite willing to s/\ /_/ or whatever. randy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m28whkzgv7.wl%randy>