On 14.09.2013 12:44, Anuranjan Shukla wrote:
> Hi,
> At Juniper Networks, interface name size was needed to be longer than what
> FreeBSD has. We're trying to reduce our local changes to FreeBSD to allow us
> an easier time upgrading to newer FreeBSD releases, and support the
> modularization of
On 9/16/13 1:23 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 9/15/13 12:21 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Sep 14, 2013, at 2:44 AM, Anuranjan Shukla wrote:
At Juniper Networks, interface name size was needed to be longer
than what FreeBSD has. We're trying to reduce our local changes to
FreeBSD to allow us an eas
On 9/15/13 12:21 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Sep 14, 2013, at 2:44 AM, Anuranjan Shukla wrote:
At Juniper Networks, interface name size was needed to be longer than what
FreeBSD has. We're trying to reduce our local changes to FreeBSD to allow us an
easier time upgrading to newer FreeBSD release
On 9/14/13 9:21 AM, "Warner Losh" wrote:
>
>On Sep 14, 2013, at 2:44 AM, Anuranjan Shukla wrote:
>> At Juniper Networks, interface name size was needed to be longer than
>>what FreeBSD has. We're trying to reduce our local changes to FreeBSD to
>>allow us an easier time upgrading to newer FreeBSD
On Sep 14, 2013, at 2:44 AM, Anuranjan Shukla wrote:
> At Juniper Networks, interface name size was needed to be longer than what
> FreeBSD has. We're trying to reduce our local changes to FreeBSD to allow us
> an easier time upgrading to newer FreeBSD releases, and support the
> modularization
