Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 3

[Alan McKinnon]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:38:20 -0500
Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote:

> > But I see
> > an improvement to let me tune the NIC names if I need to. I have
> > routers with *lot of* NIC cards where this feature is very usefull
> > (expressive names are much better than ethX).
>
> I, too, noted this as a potential advantage of udev. On my router, I
> have five interfaces. 'wan', 'he-tunnel', lan, wifi, lo and 'tun0'.
> tun0 is only so-named because it's an OpenVPN thing I
> haven't bothered to change. I've tried to advocate use this feature
> of udev.
>
> But I administer my router the way I like to. Most people I've pointed
> toward this capability just go "Meh. I have a list of interfaces and
> what they're for." even when they already have udev.

I see that as a liability not a feature.

Our routers have very clear naming conventions for interfaces and they
are exactly how Cisco enumerates them and no other way. It's a firing
offense to dick with them and dream up useless "descriptive names".

Mind you, these for the most part are big iron with several 1000
interfaces each and 100+ support personnel working on them. But even
the on-site routers and firewalls at customer premises have the same
rule.

I assume we are talking about kit that routes properly (whether a
Unix or something else is not relevant) and not some joke system.


As for NICs that do not come up at boot time in a consistent
order, if any piece of hardware in our DC did that it would be sent
right back to the vendor labeled as a piece of shit with a demand for a
refund. FFS, if my boss shells out 3 months wages for some iron and it
can't even get something that basic correct, I start to wonder what
else might be dodgy.

There is ZERO excuse for a system that cannot deterministically
enumerate it's fixed devices at boot time. 


-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com