> Personally I found ethomX most logical of the names suggested thus far.
> (EnX makes me think OS X machine).
>
> However, couldn't the entire naming issue be alleviated by adding
> symlinks
> from ethX to ethomX/enX/lomX to ensure backwards compatibility while
> making things easier to setup on multi-NIC machines?
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Andreas Bergstr?m
> ?stfold University College
> Dept. of Informatics
> http://media.hiof.no
While symlinks for ethx don't exist, they do for disks. This ethernet device
naming issue reminds me of the disk issue. Where we have
/dev/disk/{by-id|by-label|by-path|by-uuid} links to /dev/sda3 and so on.
Including the WWN of the drives.
Which is a real pain for beginners until they discover what happens when a disk
fails to appear at boot. It is a good solution.
Network interfaces, being not /dev/ listed, should have that fixed. Why not
push for that instead? Then the disk solution of links would work.
And can someone explain why we are naming NICs eth0 or lom0? Why not nic0 ?
How arcane do we have to be?
--John
_______________________________________________
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
