| 1 |
On 30/09/2013 06:14, Walter Dnes wrote: |
| 2 |
> If the udev people had made "net ifnames=0" the default, and allowed |
| 3 |
> the small percentage of multi-nic machine admins to set "net.ifnames=1", |
| 4 |
> this would not have been an issue. Some corner case exotic setups |
| 5 |
> require complex solutions... no ifs/ands/ors/buts. All the complaining |
| 6 |
> you hear is from the other 99% who's setup worked just fine with the |
| 7 |
> simple solution, suddenly finding the complex solution rammed down their |
| 8 |
> throats. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
No, that is just plain wrong. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Having interfaces on a multi-nic host come up as ethX where X is a |
| 14 |
mostly random number is just so broken it beggars belief. Trust me, it |
| 15 |
is zero fun when it happens and what makes it even worse if you have no |
| 16 |
warning at all beforehand. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Go check out FreeBSD sometime and see how they number their nics, and |
| 19 |
see how it is completely reliable every single time. Check Windows for |
| 20 |
that matter, they also don't have the problem. Neither does MacOS. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
All that happened is that Linux and udev got dragged screaming and |
| 23 |
bitching into the 21st century wrt nic naming, and things are now in a |
| 24 |
better situation they should have been in many many years ago. But, as |
| 25 |
usual, people are resistant to change even when the change is something |
| 26 |
that does indeed need to happen. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 33 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives