| 1 |
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 01:32:23PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 2 |
> But what confuses me about that linked page is that from what I've heard |
| 3 |
> from others here, option 1 - which is the option I think I'd prefer - |
| 4 |
> requires more than just symlinking 80-net-name-slot.rules to |
| 5 |
> /dev/null...? Apparently you should also create your own |
| 6 |
> 70-my-net-names.rules - but I've heard many people claim they used ethX |
| 7 |
> names instead of netX names, so... again... should I just rename my file |
| 8 |
> to 70-my-net-names.rules and leave the contents alone? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
symlinking /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules to /dev/null does |
| 11 |
the same thing as adding net.ifnames=0 to your kernel command line, so |
| 12 |
choose one or the other of these. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Neither of these is needed if you want to have your own names, |
| 15 |
because naming the interfaces yourself in /etc/uev/70-net-names.rules or |
| 16 |
whatever you call the file overrides udev's predictable names. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
If people are using ethx names and getting away with it it is probably |
| 19 |
because they are loading the drivers as modules, or by chance the kernel |
| 20 |
is initializing the cards in the order they expect. There is no |
| 21 |
guarantee that will stay consistent. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I recommend using netx names. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Does that clear it up? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
William |
Archives