From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Aug 15 19:40:25 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 070FF106568B
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:40:25 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from sthaug@nethelp.no)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 49D3D8FC15
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:40:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 26292 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2009 19:40:22 -0000
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (HELO localhost) (195.1.209.33)
	by bizet.nethelp.no with SMTP; 15 Aug 2009 19:40:22 -0000
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:40:22 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20090815.214022.41662662.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: julian@elischer.org
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <4A86F2BE.4050203@elischer.org>
References: <4A8601CE.5030205@delphij.net> <4A86C782.5030808@freebsd.org>
	<4A86F2BE.4050203@elischer.org>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: qing.li@bluecoat.com, brooks@freebsd.org, d@delphij.net,
	freebsd-net@freebsd.org, qingli@freebsd.org, bu7cher@yandex.ru,
	bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net, andre@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [Take 2] Re: RFC: interface description
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:40:25 -0000

>  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@nethelp.no