Re: network interface renaming diff

2010-04-19 Thread Henning Brauer
* Claudio Jeker [2010-04-19 18:40]: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 04:35:31PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: > > * Gregory Edigarov [2010-04-19 14:36]: > > > On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:18:02 +0200 > > > Henning Brauer wrote: > > > > > > > what problem does that solve? > > > > specifically, what problem do

Re: network interface renaming diff

2010-04-19 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 04:35:31PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: > * Gregory Edigarov [2010-04-19 14:36]: > > On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:18:02 +0200 > > Henning Brauer wrote: > > > > > what problem does that solve? > > > specifically, what problem does this solve that is not solved by > > > interface

Re: network interface renaming diff

2010-04-19 Thread Theo de Raadt
> Neat idea, but you do no sanity checking at all. So you could end up with > two interfaces with the same name (very bad) or an interface with a name > that violates the naming scheme. > Since if_xname is used in various places to identify interfaces changing > their name is dangerous. e.g. pf and

Re: network interface renaming diff

2010-04-19 Thread Henning Brauer
* Gregory Edigarov [2010-04-19 14:56]: > On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:34:12 -0400 > Simon Perreault wrote: > > > On 2010-04-19 08:31, Gregory Edigarov wrote: > > > sometimes it is better and necessary to have interfaces named under > > > one standartized name like fether0... fetherN for example > > >

Re: network interface renaming diff

2010-04-19 Thread Henning Brauer
* Stuart Henderson [2010-04-19 14:53]: > On 2010/04/19 08:34, Simon Perreault wrote: > > On 2010-04-19 08:31, Gregory Edigarov wrote: > > >sometimes it is better and necessary to have interfaces named under one > > >standartized name like fether0... fetherN for example > > > > Why? And how can gr

Re: network interface renaming diff

2010-04-19 Thread Henning Brauer
* Gregory Edigarov [2010-04-19 14:36]: > On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:18:02 +0200 > Henning Brauer wrote: > > > what problem does that solve? > > specifically, what problem does this solve that is not solved by > > interface groups? > sometimes it is better and necessary to have interfaces named under

Re: network interface renaming diff

2010-04-19 Thread Gregory Edigarov
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:05:37 +0200 Claudio Jeker wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 03:52:52PM +0300, Gregory Edigarov wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:34:12 -0400 > > Simon Perreault wrote: > > > > > On 2010-04-19 08:31, Gregory Edigarov wrote: > > > > sometimes it is better and necessary to ha

Re: network interface renaming diff

2010-04-19 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 03:52:52PM +0300, Gregory Edigarov wrote: > On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:34:12 -0400 > Simon Perreault wrote: > > > On 2010-04-19 08:31, Gregory Edigarov wrote: > > > sometimes it is better and necessary to have interfaces named under > > > one standartized name like fether0...

Re: network interface renaming diff

2010-04-19 Thread Gregory Edigarov
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:34:12 -0400 Simon Perreault wrote: > On 2010-04-19 08:31, Gregory Edigarov wrote: > > sometimes it is better and necessary to have interfaces named under > > one standartized name like fether0... fetherN for example > > Why? And how can groups not accomplish that? > > Sim

Re: network interface renaming diff

2010-04-19 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2010/04/19 08:34, Simon Perreault wrote: > On 2010-04-19 08:31, Gregory Edigarov wrote: > >sometimes it is better and necessary to have interfaces named under one > >standartized name like fether0... fetherN for example > > Why? And how can groups not accomplish that? There is one place I've f

Re: network interface renaming diff

2010-04-19 Thread Gregory Edigarov
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:17:59 +0200 Alexander Hall wrote: > On 04/19/10 13:34, Gregory Edigarov wrote: > > Hello, > > > > This diff adds possibility for the network interfaces to have an > > arbitrary names. this is done via ifconfig name > > Just curious... What is the purpose? > > For pf.co

Re: network interface renaming diff

2010-04-19 Thread Simon Perreault
On 2010-04-19 08:31, Gregory Edigarov wrote: sometimes it is better and necessary to have interfaces named under one standartized name like fether0... fetherN for example Why? And how can groups not accomplish that? Simon -- NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN serv

Re: network interface renaming diff

2010-04-19 Thread Gregory Edigarov
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:18:02 +0200 Henning Brauer wrote: > what problem does that solve? > specifically, what problem does this solve that is not solved by > interface groups? sometimes it is better and necessary to have interfaces named under one standartized name like fether0... fetherN for exa

Re: network interface renaming diff

2010-04-19 Thread Gregory Edigarov
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:09:00 +0300 Gregory Edigarov wrote: > On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:52:13 +0200 > Claudio Jeker wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 02:34:55PM +0300, Gregory Edigarov wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > This diff adds possibility for the network interfaces to have an > > > arbitra

Re: network interface renaming diff

2010-04-19 Thread Alexander Hall
On 04/19/10 13:34, Gregory Edigarov wrote: > Hello, > > This diff adds possibility for the network interfaces to have an arbitrary > names. > this is done via ifconfig name Just curious... What is the purpose? For pf.conf you can add an interface group name to the interface and use that as an

Re: network interface renaming diff

2010-04-19 Thread Mark Kettenis
> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:50:55 +0200 > From: Otto Moerbeek > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 02:34:55PM +0300, Gregory Edigarov wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > This diff adds possibility for the network interfaces to have an > > arbitrary names. this is done via ifconfig name > > > > This enables

Re: network interface renaming diff

2010-04-19 Thread Henning Brauer
what problem does that solve? specifically, what problem does this solve that is not solved by interface groups? -- Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Applicatio

Re: network interface renaming diff

2010-04-19 Thread Gregory Edigarov
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:52:13 +0200 Claudio Jeker wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 02:34:55PM +0300, Gregory Edigarov wrote: > > Hello, > > > > This diff adds possibility for the network interfaces to have an > > arbitrary names. this is done via ifconfig name > > > > Neat idea, but you do no

Re: network interface renaming diff

2010-04-19 Thread Otto Moerbeek
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 02:34:55PM +0300, Gregory Edigarov wrote: > Hello, > > This diff adds possibility for the network interfaces to have an arbitrary > names. > this is done via ifconfig name > > Please test. > Thank you. > > > --- /usr/src/sys/net/if.c.origSat Apr 17 12:42:06

Re: network interface renaming diff

2010-04-19 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 02:34:55PM +0300, Gregory Edigarov wrote: > Hello, > > This diff adds possibility for the network interfaces to have an arbitrary > names. > this is done via ifconfig name > Neat idea, but you do no sanity checking at all. So you could end up with two interfaces with t

network interface renaming diff

2010-04-19 Thread Gregory Edigarov
Hello, This diff adds possibility for the network interfaces to have an arbitrary names. this is done via ifconfig name Please test. Thank you. --- /usr/src/sys/net/if.c.orig Sat Apr 17 12:42:06 2010 +++ /usr/src/sys/net/if.c Sat Apr 17 13:27:12 2010 @@ -1416,6 +1416,17 @@