| 1 |
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 18:50:38 +0100, Heiko Baums wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > Maybe there are different opinions, but what is cryptic on - as a |
| 4 |
> > typical one - enp3s0?: |
| 5 |
> > e - ethernet |
| 6 |
> > n - network |
| 7 |
> > p - pci (port) ... |
| 8 |
> > 3 - ... 3 |
| 9 |
> > s - slot ... |
| 10 |
> > 0 - ... 0 |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Think about that yourself again and compare it to - eth0: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> eth - ethernet |
| 15 |
> 0 - 1st card |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
And which physical card is that? Each time you boot? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> I don't think I need to explain which of both is a lot more complicated |
| 20 |
> and cryptic. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Yes, it is more complicated, but they are called predictable network |
| 23 |
names, not simple network names. It means you know exactly which port a |
| 24 |
network device refers to, every time you boot. Adding another NIC, even |
| 25 |
if it is discovered first, will not change the names of existing NICs. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
It's rather like the situation with hard disks, where sda may one day |
| 28 |
become sdb, so distros use UUIDs in fstab. UUIDs are far more cryptic |
| 29 |
than predictable network names, but no one complains loudly and |
| 30 |
pointlessly about them, which I can only attribute to provenance. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Yes, the predictable names are pointless on a single-NIC system, which is |
| 33 |
why there exist simple methods to switch back to the old way. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Bug: (n.) any program feature not yet described to the marketing |
| 40 |
department. |
Archives