On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 01:41:28PM -0500, William Hubbs 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. There is one more situation where you would get away with eth0, and that is if you just have one network card.
But, as soon as you add another card, there is no guarantee that eth0 will refer to the card you expect it to refer to. > I recommend using netx names. > > Does that clear it up? > > William >
pgpS86373M0lW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
