[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Device naming for wireless NICs...

To: James Ketrenos <jketreno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Device naming for wireless NICs...
From: Matthew Galgoci <mgalgoci@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 11:54:40 -0500 (EST)
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <405093A7.90209@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, James Ketrenos wrote:

> If this topic been hashed a lot already, please let me know the keywords I 
> might 
> search for in the archives to find the threads.
> I've had a few requests by users of the IPW2100 wireless driver to switch the 
> default interface name to be wlanX vs. ethX.  In my prior searches through 
> the 
> wireless drivers in the 2.6.3 kernel tree, I couldn't find any that changed 
> from 
> the default.
> I don't mind adding a module parameter to change the default name (if that is 
> the standard practice), but thought I'd see what others thing rather than 
> just 
> going off and doing something random.
> Is there a technical or ease of use reason switching away from ethX?  My 
> thinking in keeping it eth was that it then represents a greater chance of 
> "just 
> working" with most networking scripts and utilities that may assume ethX is 
> the 
> interface name.

TBH I don't think it much matters. I know that at least Red Hat's networking 
(and possibly other distributions) did at one point assume that each interface 
be named ethX, but I don't think that is the case anymore.

Some drivers even present both a wlanX and an ethX interface, which I think is 
an atavism
that goes back to networking scripts breaking horribly on non-ethX interface 

Going forward it might be worth while to standardize all wireless interface 
names, just
to show at a glance that an interface is 802.11x, and also to differentiate the 
fact that
eventually 802.11 will be its own network stack.

Matthew Galgoci
System Administrator
Red Hat, Inc
919.754.3700 x44155

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>