On Thursday, 01.10.2015 at 23:13, Antti Kantee wrote:
> >The hardest bit currently is trying to understand network device naming and
> >what names are needed by what target and how to map the kernel’s naming to
> >the external name. I’m still trying to figure this out. Not sure if this
> >needs code or just written explanation. Feels a bit like black magic at the
> >moment to work our network device names. I need to dive into the code to try
> >to fully understand this area.
>
> It's true that the naming is .. uhm .. suboptimal.
>
> The problem is that the INSIDE config has no way of knowing how the devices
> in the OUTSIDE config may be enumerated at runtime. If you have only one
> Ethernet device, it's easy'ish, but beyond that it's always unsure('ish).
>
> Linux has (or at least had?) the advantage of using eth<n> for the devices.
> There was a loooong flamewar about converting to that scheme on the NetBSD
> lists ~15(?) years ago, so not holding my breath that NetBSD is going to
> migrate away from the driver<n> scheme any time before the heat death of the
> universe.
Apparently upstream Linux udev/systemd switched to a combination of
bus/mac/firmware-based interface identifiers some time ago [1].
Some distributions have since followed suit with introducing this scheme
(Void Linux, Fedora since 22 [2]), and there is a proposal for Debian to
switch to the same scheme from May this year along with useful discussion
at [3]. I've not read the whole thread (yet) so I don't know what the final
outcome of the proposal is.
[1]
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/PredictableNetworkInterfaceNames/
[2]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/22/html/Networking_Guide/ch-Consistent_Network_Device_Naming.html
[3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2015/05/msg00170.html
