On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 18:45 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Oliver Kurth <okurth@gmx.net> wrote: > > > 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. > > There's other (more resiliant) ways of doing that. In 2.6, wireless > cards will have a directory called wireless under sys/class/net/foo. I still use 2.4 as long as sound support for my cs46xx card is broken in 2.6. Also, I will still use 2.4 on embedded devices (yes, they use pcmcia cards). > > 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.=20 > > But really, that's a problem that should be solved in a more generic > fashion. If I plug in two different wired cards, I'm probably doing so > because they've been left in two different places, and so want two > different configurations. But they'll both end up as eth2 anyway. I use guessnet to find out where I am. But I will always start waproamd for wlan, and ifplugd for wired network. > It makes more sense to either bind configuration to specific cards > (using the mac address, for instance), or different classes of card. I know that there are other ways. But it makes things more complicated. Complicated things break more easily. Why not leave it simple, and just use an easy name scheme? Greetings, Oliver
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part