On 04/08/2013 11:04 AM, Bruce Hill wrote: > On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 03:09:43PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:25:50AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: >>> On 2013-04-05 4:11 PM, William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:38:21PM -0500, Bruce Hill wrote: >>>>> Just dealing with one server and my Linux router, they've been updated to >>>>> sys-fs/udev-200 and are both still using the same >>>>> /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules file they've had for over a >>>>> year, >>>>> which was working with udev-171. >>>> >>>> Do you have your network interface drivers built into the kernel or are >>>> they modules? >>> >>> I'm very interested in the significance of this question... >>> >>> My server is module free, so all drivers are built into the kernel. >> >> The significance is that the kernel determines the eth* name order. >> Right now, you are lucky in that the order is what you think it should >> be, but if something changes in the kernel causing your cards to be >> initialized in a different order, you will not be allowed to swap them >> around in the eth* name space, e.g. eth1 can't become eth0 or visa >> versa. >> >> That is why it is recommended that you use something like net0, net1, >> etc for your interface names. > > Thanks for your reply. After 10 years of eth* it's going to be hard to make a > change until the kernel does this, also.
No kidding. There's almost 30 years' documentation out there that assumes 'eth0' is the interface you care about, except in cases where you care about 'eth0' and 'eth1'. As far as the kernel namespace issue...there needs to be a different namespace between what the kernel defines and what udev can control; at the moment, if you define your own NIC names (say, wan1, wan2), there's a chance that a kernel driver will stomp on it if you start using a card that has a driver that likes that numbering scheme.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
