| 1 |
On 2013-04-05 2:41 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 01:32:23PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 3 |
>> But what confuses me about that linked page is that from what I've heard |
| 4 |
>> from others here, option 1 - which is the option I think I'd prefer - |
| 5 |
>> requires more than just symlinking 80-net-name-slot.rules to |
| 6 |
>> /dev/null...? Apparently you should also create your own |
| 7 |
>> 70-my-net-names.rules - but I've heard many people claim they used ethX |
| 8 |
>> names instead of netX names, so... again... should I just rename my file |
| 9 |
>> to 70-my-net-names.rules and leave the contents alone? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> symlinking /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules to /dev/null does |
| 12 |
> the same thing as adding net.ifnames=0 to your kernel command line, so |
| 13 |
> choose one or the other of these. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Neither of these is needed if you want to have your own names, |
| 16 |
> because naming the interfaces yourself in /etc/uev/70-net-names.rules or |
| 17 |
> whatever you call the file overrides udev's predictable names. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> If people are using ethx names and getting away with it it is probably |
| 20 |
> because they are loading the drivers as modules, or by chance the kernel |
| 21 |
> is initializing the cards in the order they expect. There is no |
| 22 |
> guarantee that will stay consistent. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I recommend using netx names. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Does that clear it up? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Well, to a point (as to whether I use netX or ethX)... |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I'd still like to know why the contents of my current rules file differs |
| 31 |
so much from the examples I've seen... ie, the two extra items that are |
| 32 |
in mine ('DRIVERS==' and 'KERNEL=='), and the missing one |
| 33 |
('ACTION==')... and whether or not I should include these if I decide to |
| 34 |
go with my own rules file... |
Archives