| 1 |
On 04/01/2013 09:12 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 13:57:42 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> I still don't understand what's so bad with MAC-based identification? I |
| 5 |
>> mean, uniqueness defined through MAC Address identity, the system name |
| 6 |
>> is just a label... |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> MAC addresses are not human-friendly. It would be OK if you could set up |
| 9 |
> aliases, so your firewall rules could use enaabbccddeeff while you could |
| 10 |
> still type eth0. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Frankly, I never found 'eth0' to be particularly friendly, either. Hence |
| 15 |
why I like naming my interfaces things like 'wan', 'wifilan' and 'wiredlan'. |
Archives