From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 10 20:03:11 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85DC816A4CE for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:03:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from burka.carrier.kiev.ua (burka.carrier.kiev.ua [193.193.193.107]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC8AD43D49 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:03:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from netch@lucky.net) Received: from burka.carrier.kiev.ua (netch@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by burka.carrier.kiev.ua with ESMTP id i8AK32SH093390; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:03:05 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from netch@burka.carrier.kiev.ua) Received: (from netch@localhost) by burka.carrier.kiev.ua (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i8AK32YK093387; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:03:02 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from netch) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:03:02 +0300 From: Valentin Nechayev To: Brooks Davis Message-ID: <20040910200302.GD84228@lucky.net> References: <20040910191831.GP89036@lucky.net> <200409102130.20287.max@love2party.net> <20040910194642.GC84228@lucky.net> <20040910195826.GE28085@odin.ac.hmc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040910195826.GE28085@odin.ac.hmc.edu> X-42: On X-Verify-Sender: Address has been verified (burka.carrier.kiev.ua) cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: original interface name? (5.*) X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: netch@lucky.net List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:03:11 -0000 Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 12:58:26, brooks wrote about "Re: original interface name? (5.*)": >> Device number among with driver name are enough to determine needed >> information based on driver information and boot logs. >> It is pointless to use interface without such information, and it is pointless >> to do manual logging as the only source. > This is a better reason, but if you want the logs to make sense, you > will have to be aware of changes. Hmm, we may want to log(9) renames. > I'm considering adding an ifconfig -v option that would imply -m and add > more details like index, epoch, dname, dunit, etc. Well, both ideas (logging renames and a switch to print more info) are highly pleasant. Thanks in advance for implementation. -netch-