interface renaming

[Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai]

-On [20031101 19:52], Matthew Dillon (dillon at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>    I think for DragonFly we should leave the naming as it is.  For all intents
>    and purposes ethernet interfaces are 'hidden' and 'abstracted' from the
>    user be virtue of the route table already, we don't need to abstract them
>    further by naming them all the same!

Amen.

It might just be a feeling, but to me it just feels so wrong to have
only ethN devices.   I actually like the xlN, fxpN, and so on.

We might ened to check it it makes sense for all devices though.

-- 
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(at)wxs.nl> / asmodai / kita no mono
PGP fingerprint: 2D92 980E 45FE 2C28 9DB7  9D88 97E6 839B 2EAC 625B
http://www.tendra.org/   | http://www.in-nomine.org/~asmodai/diary/
Where does the world end if the enternal optimist loses faith..?