From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: Vlan interface nuisance Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 23:30:11 +0100 Message-ID: <20090302223011.GA3388@ami.dom.local> References: <20090301204731.40ce346a@nehalam> <20090302172057.GA23247@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <49AC2A9C.5090303@gmail.com> <49AC545E.3090708@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Lennart Sorensen , Stephen Hemminger , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from mail-bw0-f178.google.com ([209.85.218.178]:46398 "EHLO mail-bw0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752626AbZCBWal (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:30:41 -0500 Received: by bwz26 with SMTP id 26so2142511bwz.37 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:30:38 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49AC545E.3090708@trash.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 10:49:18PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > Jarek Poplawski wrote: >> Lennart Sorensen wrote, On 03/02/2009 06:20 PM: >> >>> On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 08:47:31PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >>>> Why is interface created through netlink named 'vlan0' and >>>> interface created through old vconfig called 'ethX.YY'. >>>> Seems like the interface should be consistent. >>> That does seem silly. >>> >>> ethX.YYYY told you which physical interface and which vlan number it was. >>> >>> vlan0 tells you nothing useful. >> >> >> Even if you have only one ethX? > > The binding is displayed when listing interfaces. This hole > argument is silly, if you want a particular name, just specify > it. The current naming schemes are entirely based on information > that you have to specify anyways. Just for the record, I don't agree with calling "this" argument silly just like it was with "that" argument. Actually, I think they are both so "right" that I've changed my mind and think it's great each tool does it differently... Jarek P.