Howto rename an interface

[Jeremy Chadwick]

        Not to barge into an already-spurious conversation, but I must
        completely disagree with this methodology.  I'm sorry, but Linux's
        implementation is incredibly ambiguous, and always has been.  I
        knew where your recommendation was coming from (it was obvious
        from the start, re: eth1).  This is not an anti-Linux comment
        as much as it is a comment supporting the concept of a clean --
        and consistent -- interface to common drivers and devices.  As
        a 7-year Linux user who "turned BSD" due to this specific reason,
        I've come to believe I've earned my right to speak.

        In BSD, each driver is represented (for the most part) by it's
        appropriate abbreviation.  It's easy to refer to ("I use the dc
        driver," "Check the dc(4) manpage"), it results in a clean
        code-base (if_dc.c, src/sys/dev/dc), and it provides _consistency_
        across the board not only in the kernel and device layer, but also
        as far as user-land applications go.  Don't forget about fellow
        administrators helping one another out (either online or in
        person); I cannot even begin to imagine send-pr(1) forms with
        data consisting of interface names which don't correspond with
        their proper driver.

        If I was able to name a network interface FooBarBlat, that really
        doesn't tell me anything about what the actual interface _is_,
        nor does it make the debugging process any easier.  You start
        having to add an extra layer of ambiguity between user-land and
        kernel, as well as interface code and other IP-based modules.
        A lookup-interface-alias-and-correspond-with-device-ID function,
        just adding more overhead for something that's entirely cosmetical.

        I fully agree with Mike Tancsa's earlier comment: this sounds
        tremendously messy to maintain, and (IMHO) completely goes
        against what I believe to be the "BSD-style" of doing things (I'm
        sure someone more senior in the BSD community will slap me for
        this, but I think people know what I'm getting at here).  The
        day I see "eth" show up in BSD will be the day I, and many other
        administrators, voice our disapproval loudly.

        Sorry if this Email comes off as harsh -- I just grow very tired
        of seeing ambiguity weaselling it's way into Good Software(tm).

-- 
| Jeremy Chadwick                                   jdc at parodius.com |
| Parodius Networking                          http://www.parodius.com/ |
| UNIX Systems Administrator                     Mountain View, CA, USA |
| Making life hard for others since 1977.                               |
| "Appreciate what you've got, 'cuz basically, I'm fantastic." -- Holly |

On Sun, May 04, 2003 at 07:37:27PM +0200, Vincent Jardin wrote:
> Le Samedi 3 Mai 2003 16:43, Mike Tancsa a écrit :
> > It sounds a bit messy to maintain.  Perhaps it would be easier to just
> > write wrapper programs around those that you use if really need be.  e.g. a
> > local copy of netstat,ifconfig and route and have those executed first in
> > your path.
> 
> I thought about it. However many issues remain:
>   - SNMP still uses the FreeBSD's interface name
>   - the kernel logs
>   - ... they are lot of softwares that need their own patch 
> 
> Whereas all these softwares would work fine if the interface name does not 
> have a unit number.
> 
> Thanks,
>   Vincent
> 
> PS:
> For example, with Linux, the name of an ipip or gre tunnel is free:
> # ip tunnel add FooBar mode ipip remote 192.168.0.251 local 192.168.0.15 
> # ifconfig FooBar
> FooBar    Lien encap:IPIP Tunnel  HWaddr   
>           POINTOPOINT NOARP  MTU:1480  Metric:1
>           RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>           TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>           collisions:0 lg file transmission:0 
>           RX bytes:0 (0.0 b)  TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)
> 
> 
> >
> > 	---Mike
> >
> > On Sat, 3 May 2003 15:47:34 +0200, in sentex.lists.freebsd.net you wrote:
> > >I would like to rename the network interfaces. More particularly, I would
> > > like to control the numbers in the name and to remove the constraints.
> > >
> > >For example, what are the issues about renaming my 'vr0' interface to
> > > eth1-3 or DSL-WAN that does not have a ifunit within its name ?
> > >
> > >I think about the following issues, what am I forgetting ?
> > >  - update all the sockaddr_dl
> > >  - many drivers, in fact all of them, log with %s%d, ifname, ifunit
> > >  - (add a message on the routing socket)
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >  Vincent
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >freebsd-net at freebsd.org mailing list
> > >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> > >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> >
> > Mike Tancsa  (mike at sentex.net)
> > http://www.sentex.net/mike
> 
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-net at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"