Interface names?

  • By default we have the interfaces WAN, LAN, OPT1 - OPTn

    But then we can rename them, e.g. DMZ, etc.

    So why in many places do they not show up with their proper (renamed) names? e.g. Squid3 general settings is a list of interfaces, and it says in my case: LAN, OPT1, OPT2, WAN, loopback when it should say LAN, DMZ, WAN6, WAN, loopback.

  • It's up to the package maintainer in that case whether to use friendly (user-defined) or real (underlying identifier) interface names. They should all do as the base system does and use the friendly name. That doesn't mean they do.

  • Well, it's not just packages.
    E.g. on the dashboard, the traffic graphs, even though the title uses the "friendly" name, the graph itself does use the "real" name.
    Similarly, in System:General Setup, when I select gateways, I get items in the popup list like
    [WAN6GW - opt2 - 2001::xx…] when clearly I'd expect [WAN6GW - WAN6 - 2001::xx…]
    Also on the Services:UPnP & NAT-PMP page, and probably others, these are just a few that crossed my path in the last few moments.

    Also, why are these the real names? I know real names like en0, em0, lagg2, etc. which I then may designate LAN, WAN, etc. So why do we have this layer in between of pseudo-friendly names that I can neither rename nor are actual interface names.

    After all, the WAN interface has both a "friendly" name of WAN and a "real" name of WAN. It's clear that besides the mandatory WAN, and likely LAN interface doesn't initially know what the other interfaces are used for, hence the opt1 - optn names upon creation, but why can't these real names not be really changed and be identical to their "friendly" names, just like the WAN and LAN interface really are called wan and lan?

    Really, in a particular configuration, there's no such thing as an "optional interface" unless I have more interfaces than I actually use, because when I need a DMZ, that isn't optional in any sense of the word, it's just a DMZ interface, just like the WAN interface is a WAN interface.

    It's not a major deal, but it's one of these "small pebble in your shoe" kind of things, irritating on daily basis, without really preventing you from doing what absolutely needs to get done…

  • Nothing in the base system should show the real if name, open a ticket on redmine with anywhere you see that in the base system.

  • @cmb:

    Nothing in the base system should show the real if name, open a ticket on redmine with anywhere you see that in the base system.

    I'll go on a hunting expedition when I find a bit of time…
    ...and file the stuffed beasts in red mine ;)

    Still one question: at what level are these real names real?

    Obviously they are not the physical interfaces, which have names like em0, nor are they real even for things like fail-over interfaces (lagg0) nor for tunnels, nor...
    So if they are not defined at the OS level, why can't we just rename the "real" names, forget about "friendly" names, and be done? Is this a BSD thing, or has it to do pfSense internals, or what?