On 2013-04-05 2:41 PM, William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 01:32:23PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
But what confuses me about that linked page is that from what I've heard
from others here, option 1 - which is the option I think I'd prefer -
requires more than just symlinking 80-net-name-slot.rules to
/dev/null...? Apparently you should also create your own
70-my-net-names.rules - but I've heard many people claim they used ethX
names instead of netX names, so... again... should I just rename my file
to 70-my-net-names.rules and leave the contents alone?
symlinking /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules to /dev/null does
the same thing as adding net.ifnames=0 to your kernel command line, so
choose one or the other of these.
Neither of these is needed if you want to have your own names,
because naming the interfaces yourself in /etc/uev/70-net-names.rules or
whatever you call the file overrides udev's predictable names.
If people are using ethx names and getting away with it it is probably
because they are loading the drivers as modules, or by chance the kernel
is initializing the cards in the order they expect. There is no
guarantee that will stay consistent.
I recommend using netx names.
Does that clear it up?
Well, to a point (as to whether I use netX or ethX)...
I'd still like to know why the contents of my current rules file differs
so much from the examples I've seen... ie, the two extra items that are
in mine ('DRIVERS==' and 'KERNEL=='), and the missing one
('ACTION==')... and whether or not I should include these if I decide to
go with my own rules file...
