On 2013-04-06, Pandu Poluan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ahhh... I think now I understand...
>
> So. Here's my summarization of the situation:
>
> * The ethX naming can change, i.e., the interfaces can get out of order
> * So, to fix this, udev decided to use the physical attachment points of
> the NIC in driving a persistent name, a name that will be identical across
> boots as long as there is no hardware change
> * In doing so, it also frees the 'traditional' ethX names to be used
> * If one wants, one can still 'rename' the NICs to the 'traditional' names
> using the 70-*.rules script
Wha? I swear I was told that you could not reliably name the
iterfaces eth[0-n] using udev rules (which is what I've always done
without problems) because of "race conditions". So I changed over to
net[0-n] on one machine, and was planning on doing so on the others
soon.
Can we still use udev rules to name interfaces eth[0-n] or not?
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! I've got an IDEA!!
at Why don't I STARE at you
gmail.com so HARD, you forget your
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER!!
