Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:40:22 +0200 (CEST) From: sthaug@nethelp.no To: julian@elischer.org 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 Message-ID: <20090815.214022.41662662.sthaug@nethelp.no> In-Reply-To: <4A86F2BE.4050203@elischer.org> References: <4A8601CE.5030205@delphij.net> <4A86C782.5030808@freebsd.org> <4A86F2BE.4050203@elischer.org>
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. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090815.214022.41662662.sthaug>