Once upon a time, Paul Allen Newell said:
> Problem is solved as far as I am concerned, even though I am certain
> there is probably some way to get a unique token. Since my goal is to
> get the machine up and running so I can be a user on it, I learned from
> all the material offered that it i
On 5/27/2012 5:59 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
I think he wants the "single, known interface" to have a single known
name, and not some random characters determined by the whichness of what.
Bill (and Reindl, Ed, and Tom who replied to Bill):
Thanks for the addition comments.
The statement Bi
On Sun, 27 May 2012 23:39:06 +0800
Ed Greshko wrote:
> If,
> for example, you (or someone who works for you) change a network card whose
> cable was
> labeled eth0 you will need to remember to edit the 70-persistent-net.rules.
That always seemed dumb to me. It can tell (or make a good guess)
if
On 05/27/2012 08:59 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> I really want to be able to put any card in any slot and match the label on
> the
> cable to the label on the NIC, and have scripts which don't have to be
> needlessly
> complex to discover the name of the interface
OK, but you do realize that you a
Am 27.05.2012 14:59, schrieb Bill Davidsen:
> The problem with naming is that for every server run by experienced sysadmins
"experienced sysadmins" should not have a problem to open
"/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules" and define
"eth0"
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*",
AT
Ed Greshko wrote:
On 05/23/2012 11:22 AM, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
[updated, keeping original post and adding new info at bottom]
On 5/22/2012 8:12 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
Hello:
As I continue dealing with iptables, another issue has come up that I can't tell
is a mis-understanding on my
On 5/23/2012 1:07 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
edit "/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules" (ONE LINE, replace MAC with
yours)
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="00:50:56:bd:00:27",
ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0",
ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth0"
_
Am 23.05.2012 08:17, schrieb Paul Allen Newell:
> With all due respect, its become clear to me that ifconfig is obsolete and a
> solution which uses it doesn't have a
> future. Can you try to get the ip address with command "ip" on a i686 and
> x86_64 system without having to run a
> different
On 05/23/2012 02:46 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
> Okay, that's a good question that I hadn't considered. So do you happen to
> know how
> to change the names?
No. Not something that I've needed or wanted to do.
--
Never be afraid to laugh at yourself, after all, you could be missing out on
On 5/22/2012 11:33 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
Maybe the question you should be asking is this? I don't like the
names that have been assigned to my network interfaces. How can I
change them to be what I want them to be?
Ed:
Okay, that's a good question that I hadn't considered. So do you happen
On 05/23/2012 02:17 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
> On 5/22/2012 10:49 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> Well, as you said, things are in transition And, if you did some google
>> searches
>> you'd find that there were/are differences between how interface names
>> appear(ed) at
>> various points depe
On 5/22/2012 10:49 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
Well, as you said, things are in transition And, if you did some google
searches
you'd find that there were/are differences between how interface names
appear(ed) at
various points depending on system architecture. That seems to be your main
"issu
On 05/23/2012 01:31 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
> SO, I am at least running (but with a groan at how)
>
> I'd like a single command with no "if's" (ip or other) that give me
> 192.168.2.x (I
> can handle if it has "/24?) on the end.
Well, as you said, things are in transition And, if you d
On 5/22/2012 9:38 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
I guess I really don't know what precisely is the problem you're having.
Interface naming convention has been undergoing changes since, maybe, F14.
Interfaces that were once called eth0 became em1 and other niceties. I don't
recall
if the names changed o
On 05/23/2012 11:22 AM, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
> [updated, keeping original post and adding new info at bottom]
>
> On 5/22/2012 8:12 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
>> Hello:
>>
>> As I continue dealing with iptables, another issue has come up that I can't
>> tell
>> is a mis-understanding on my p
[updated, keeping original post and adding new info at bottom]
On 5/22/2012 8:12 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
Hello:
As I continue dealing with iptables, another issue has come up that I
can't tell is a mis-understanding on my part or a potential problem
I have three F16 machines, one x86_64
16 matches
Mail list logo
