> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Zach White > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 4:58 PM [schnipp] > > Matt, I don't believe we are bikeshedding here. There are > legitimate concerns around calling network interfaces > anything that doesn't match /eth\d*/. There are even more > legitimate concerns around the collision with the "LOM" acronym. > > If you want to have consistent naming, please have the > scripts always name the first onboard interface "eth0" and > name the second "eth1." Picking any other name will lead to > confusion, extra work, and ticked off customers calling > support because their servers stopped working after an upgrade.
I'm sorry I happen to agree with Zach here. In all scripts everywhere for as long as I have been using Linux servers and writing scripts, I have used ethX for network interfaces. I don't understand the need to name them lomX all of a sudden. Particularly, I don't see why we need to distinguish between on-board and add-in NICs in the first place, regardless of their name. I am grateful that I can change the naming scheme using udev, if needed, but I am very hesitant as too using lomX as a default in the near future, unless there is a very good reason that is carried in the community. And I am not aware of such a movement, please correct me if I am wrong. Chris. _______________________________________________ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list [email protected] https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
