On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:13 AM, Harald Dunkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Theo, > > Theo de Raadt wrote: >>> This appears to be a fairly simple change. Does it sound reasonable to >>> people with more knowledge of OpenBSD networking? >> >> No, it is not reasonble. You are inventing problems at a very high >> level just because some very low level pci-related bug is making some >> of your devices not reliably show themselves. >> > > Surely you are very close to the details of OpenBSD kernel > development, but maybe it is more helpful to keep a little > bit of distance. > > I see a system that introduces names for some of its parts on > its own, using some internal rules that I cannot influence. > These names are not well-defined. Surely they are not supposed > to change over time, but on certain events they can. Some of > these events I cannot influence, either. > > The problem is, that I am forced to reference these names in > the configuration files for a highly important part of the > system, where a change of these names could be fatal.
If the names have changed, it is because your hardware has changed or failed. That type of problem should demand your attention anyways. With some thought and prior knowledge, you may be able build and configure your system so that partial device failure will not result in the situation you describe. It is not always possible though. > Surely I am not asking to drop the traditional naming scheme > immediately, and replace it by something else. All I am asking > for is to think about it, how this could be improved. Did you not read the earlier replies? People may be thinking about it, but it is not the fatal flaw you build it up to be. As others have suggested, there are already networking tools in OpenBSD that can help you provide link redundancy by using a second computer. Your "improvement" may happen someday but from what I've read in this thread, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for it. --david
