On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 18:17 +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > ma, 2005-02-07 kello 16:50 +0100, Mike Hommey kirjoitti: > > Wireless interfaces should be called wlan%d, not eth%d > > Why is this important? Why does the name of a network interface matter? > All the tools in Debian that can deal with network interfaces are > neutral about the name and the name isn't particularly significant to > users either. If one is worried about which interface name corresponds > to which physical device, guessing from the name is not a good way. > Using ifconfig or iwconfig or other tools to do it is a better way. > > (I'm not saying that using wlan%d is bad or wrong, I am asking for > justifications for that name over eth%d.) Naming wired network eth%d and wireless wlan%d would make things a lot easier. For example, it is easier to find out whether to start ifplugd or waproamd when the interface is created. I dislike naming wireless interfaces eth%d, because I often plug in a wired network card into my notebook at work, and a wireless card at home. They would both get eth1, but I may want different configurations. Also, 'private' names like ath%d are annyoing, because in the waproamd package I have to care for all of these. And it does not make sense, all wired ethernet devces get eth%d, so why do the wireless devices get names depending on the driver? It is possible to work around these issues, but using eth%d for wired and wlan%d for wireless makes life a lot easier. Greetings, Oliver
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part