On Thursday 29 August 2019 15:23:42 Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > and yet you can't actually describe what you DO want to happen. > > > > I just did, in a step by step description, Greg. How you choose to > > understand it is up to you. > > I just reviewed > <https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2019/08/msg01389.html> again. > There is nothing in it about how you want interface names to be > assigned. > > There isn't even a single interface name mentioned. Not one. > No instances of "eth0" or "eno0" or "enp2s6" or anything. > > All you talk about are hosts files and DNS, with a side of offtopic > medical issues. > > I can only conclude that you don't understand what anyone is talking > about. I think I've wasted enough time on this thread.
My main point is that a scheme to give consistent names to an interface, goes completely aglay when the drive is moved to a different machine. It does not matter what the interfaces name was, never has and never will. In the instant case it was eth1, but it became a totally non-existent eth2 according to the last stanza of /e/u/r.d/70-persistent-net.rules. An eth2 which could not be brought on line by the /e/n/i settings for eth1. So as far as I'm concerned, the current scheme to "assure consistent net port names", is an abject failure. What I wanted was a foolproof method to reset this whole circus to square 1 and keep it there. The puzzle to me is why did it take a weeks worth of name calling and denegrateing each other to finally elicit a working answer. Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
