| 1 |
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:31:10 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> In Flameyes blog, he showed an example of using udev rules pretty much |
| 4 |
> identical to the ones I already had, so I couldn't figure out what was |
| 5 |
> different (other than the default interface names, which still aren't |
| 6 |
> really predictable). |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
They are totally predictable, since the names are specified in the rules, |
| 9 |
so you can predict what the interface will be called, it's what the rules |
| 10 |
file says it will be called. However, the important issue is persistence, |
| 11 |
whatever name an interface has is the name it will always have. The rules |
| 12 |
renaming within the kernel namespace, eth, wlan etc, could not guarantee |
| 13 |
that because of race conditions, and the so-called persistent names from |
| 14 |
the new udev still cannot do the same for devices that can be physically |
| 15 |
moved (mainly USB). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The simplest solution is to do what the news item suggests, rename the |
| 18 |
persistent-net rules file and rename the interfaces within it to not |
| 19 |
clash with the kernel. That's all you need to worry about when going from |
| 20 |
197 to 200, upgrading from earlier versions means you should act on the |
| 21 |
parts about DEVTMPFS and runlevel files. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Am I ignorant or apathetic? I don't know and don't care! |
Archives