| 1 |
On 31/03/13 04:06, Philip Webb wrote: |
| 2 |
> 130329 Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Attached new version again, more generic than before. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I find this difficult to decipher. Who is it aimed at ? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I've just updated to Udev 200 . Following the news item, |
| 8 |
> I renamed /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules : |
| 9 |
> my script to start my I/net connection with DHCP failed. |
| 10 |
> I restored the file to its old name & all works as usual : |
| 11 |
> it has 'NAME="eth0"'. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Aimed to everyone and it already answers your questions. I can answer |
| 14 |
them differently here again, but if you read the news item, this all is |
| 15 |
there: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If kernel assigns eth0 to first network interface (driver/module) then |
| 18 |
you can't rename to eth0, thus the rule you have is likely superflous |
| 19 |
and it doesn't matter if you delete it or not -- you are currently |
| 20 |
using "random" kernel names |
| 21 |
What it might do is interfere with enabling of the new networking, so |
| 22 |
you should propably symlink /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules to |
| 23 |
/dev/null and delete the 70-persistent-net.rules and the behavior of |
| 24 |
your system stays exactly as it's when you are writing this now, |
| 25 |
using random kernel names, but if it's an system with only 1 network |
| 26 |
card, it propably doesn't matter much as eth0 gets always used (almost |
| 27 |
always) |
| 28 |
Nothing is stopping you from leaving out the symlink either and |
| 29 |
migrating to the new name despite using only 1 network card either, |
| 30 |
it's still more reliable than the kernel names |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
The logic really isn't that hard... It's documented everywhere... :-( |
Archives