Is there any reason we don't allow named interfaces? (tun-NAME instead of tunNNN) Would make keeping track of a large number of interfaces a lot easier. It's valid in other distributions so I don't see a technical reason.
- Difficulty level
- Lunatic (nearly impossible)
- Why the issue appeared?
- Will be filled on close
- Is it a breaking change?
- Unspecified (possibly destroys the router)
@mb300sd The reason we do not allo arbitrary names is that there's no easy way to find out exact interface type, so we forced them to begin with eth, br, tun etc. so that scripts can find out what it is and filter only compatible interfaces.
Relaxing the requirements to "starts with keyword" like eth-lan or tun-office would be an interesting idea, but I'm afraid only in the long run, since a number of scripts have regexes like eth\d+ hardcoded in them and it will take time to clean up.