Inconsistency in referring to an Interface by RIP config

[ManiAm]

In the IPv4Configurator config parameter, interfaces are referred to as eth0, eth1, but in the RIP config, interface names are referred to as eth[0] or eth[1].

IPv4 config:

<config>
	<interface hosts='host{0-6} whost{0,1} router*' address='10.x.x.x' netmask='255.x.x.x'/>
    <route hosts='host*' destination='*' netmask='0.0.0.0' interface='eth0' />
    <route hosts='whost*' destination='*' netmask='0.0.0.0' interface='wlan0' />
</config>

RIP Config:

<config>
	<interface names='eth[1]' mode='NoRIP' />
	<interface names='eth[3]' mode='NoRIP' />
	<interface metric='1' />
</config>

Users might find it confusing that RIP refers to interfaces as eth[0], eth[1] and not eth0, eth1 and they might scratch their head for hours figuring out what went wrong :p

P.S. For a working example, you can refer to the scenario I attached in #333.

[levy]

You are right, this inconsistency is wrong and should be fixed. I'm not sure which way should we go. I tend to think that eth0, wlan0, etc. are not so great after all for two reasons. One is that modules are called eth[0] and wlan[0] in INET, so users are got used to it. Two is that linux doesn't call interfaces 'eth0' and 'wlan0' any more, the interfaces have a more obscure name.

Unfortunately, changing all interface names to eth[0] and wlan[0] is backward incompatible and non-trivial. But INET 4.0 is already backward incompatible in a million ways, so there's that. We will talk about this internally.