| 1 |
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 23:11:08 +0100, lee wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> >> But you already heard of udev rules? I guess I mentioned them |
| 4 |
> >> already. They are not so hard to write and they only need to be |
| 5 |
> >> written once. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > It's too late by then, if eth0 and eth1 already exist, you cannot |
| 8 |
> > switch them with udev rules - as anyone who had worked with dual NICs |
| 9 |
> > would have discovered. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Can you switch them when they have unrecognisable names? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
You can't switch any two names because the udev rules are run singly, so |
| 14 |
at one point you will be trying to rename an interface with a name that |
| 15 |
is already in use. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
This has nothing to do with how easily you are able to grok the name |
| 18 |
scheme and everything to do with consistency. Unfortunately, there are |
| 19 |
still situations, especially with USB NICs, where this can fail, but for |
| 20 |
PCI NICs you are guaranteed that the names will always stay the same and |
| 21 |
you are not suddenly in the position of the two sides of your firewall |
| 22 |
switching places. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
But of you don't like it,, just do what the elog message tells you and it |
| 25 |
won't be a problem, it's a default setting not an enforced behaviour. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
"There are some ideas so idiotic that only an intellectual could believe |
| 32 |
them" George Orwell |
Archives