RFC: interface description

[Li, Qing]

> 
> My point has always been - if I have to add/do an ioctl I can always
> also use a library call that will read it from a .txt, .xml, .db file
> or whatever and I don't have to go to the kernel, handle all the
> string length problems there, ... especially as the kernel cannot do
> anything with that string.
> 

The interface description feature is a useful feature. Quite a few
products out there actually put a label on the physical box so it's
reasonable to have the ability to label the ports in the kernel.

There are quite a few embedded systems and not-so-standalone boxes
out there that are derivatives of FreeBSD. These systems might not
have the luxury of a file system. And getting coredumps from the
field with such information embedded in the ifnet{} just makes
debugging field issues a little bit easier.

>
> So here comes the usual catch 22 on a classic PC system:
> 	you can change everything.
>
> Using RFC 2553 Section 4 is probably the best indeed but has 
> drawbacks as well.
>

Seems rather off topic ...

-- Qing