On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 03:52:52PM +0300, Gregory Edigarov wrote:
quoted text
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:34:12 -0400
> Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> 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?
> > 
> > Simon
> suppose you need to configure some interfaces of different makes:
> em0, bge0, rl0, ath0
> to have name like:
> ether0, ether1, ether2, ether3...
> so you may plug in another card instead of ether2 for example.
> without interface renaming you will end up rewriting the whole seciton
> of your interface configuration script, while with it - you will only
> have to change one line:
> ifconfig bge0 name ether0 
>  

You can achive the same thing with interface groups. (Ok you can not name
them ether0 since a group may not end in a digit but the rest works like a
charm).

We decided multiple times against renaming of interfaces since the
consequences introduced are normaly not fully understood.
Just overwriting if_xname is just the tip of the iceberg. Some concerns
were already mentioned in this thread.

-- 
:wq Claudio