Your mentor suggests using the dladm rename-link command to rename the network datalinks. What are the two advantages of following this advice?

Question

Options

• AIt can clarify which network interface has what purpose.
• BIt can simplify specifying the network interface with the dladm modify-aggr command.
• CIt can simplify specifying the network interface with the dladm modify-bridge command.
• DIt can simplify IP filter rule changes if the network interface is replaced with a different type.
• EIt can prevent accidental deletion of the network interface with the dladm delete-phys command.
• FIt can prevent accidental deletion of the network interface configuration with the ipadm delete- addr command.

• A
  74% (34)
• B
  13% (6)
• C
  4% (2)
• E
  7% (3)
• F
  2% (1)

Explanation

Renaming datalinks with dladm rename-link provides a human-readable label (e.g., external instead of igb0), making it immediately clear what each interface does - that's why A is correct. More importantly, D is correct because IP filter (firewall) rules reference interface names by string; if you swap hardware and the new NIC gets a different default driver-based name (e.g., e1000g0 → igb0), none of your firewall rules break as long as you re-rename the new link to match the old logical name.

B and C are wrong because dladm modify-aggr and dladm modify-bridge accept link names as arguments regardless - renaming provides no special simplification for those specific subcommands compared to any other. E and F are wrong because renaming a link offers zero protection against deletion; dladm delete-phys and ipadm delete-addr will still execute successfully on a renamed link.

Memory tip: Think of rename-link as "labeling your cables" - it helps humans understand purpose (A), and since your firewall rules use the label not the hardware driver name, swapping hardware doesn't force a rules rewrite (D). Both benefits are about abstraction from physical hardware.

No community discussion yet for this question.