Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-16 Thread Russ Allbery
Roger Lynn writes: > /etc/systemd/network/ doesn't exist on my system. I presume I would just > need to create it for this to work? I haven't been able to persuade > packages.debian.org to tell me which package it belongs to. Yeah, you just create the directory; there isn't

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-16 Thread Roger Lynn
On 13/07/17 12:40, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 05:17:57AM -0400, Tom H wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Roger Lynn wrote: > > > SUBSYSTEM=="net", ATTR{address}=="1c:1b:0d:9a:34:98", NAME="eth0" > > > > It's simpler to use (for example) > > > > #

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-13 Thread Adam Borowski
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 05:17:57AM -0400, Tom H wrote: > > This caught me out on a recent new installation, which gave me these new > > names which are too complicated to be usable. I wasted hours working out > > what had happened, how to fix it and how to write a udev rules file from > > scratch.

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-13 Thread Tom H
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Roger Lynn wrote: > On 10/07/17 19:40, Marvin Renich wrote: >> >> There is an easy fix to revert the default behavior while still allowing >> knowledgeable sysadmins to get the new behavior. On the other hand, >> those who need to administer

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-12 Thread Adam Borowski
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 07:40:13PM +0100, Roger Lynn wrote: > On 10/07/17 19:40, Marvin Renich wrote: > > > > > There is an easy fix to revert the default behavior while still allowing > > knowledgeable sysadmins to get the new behavior. On the other hand, > > those who need to administer

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-12 Thread Michael Biebl
Am 12.07.2017 um 20:40 schrieb Roger Lynn: > On 10/07/17 19:40, Marvin Renich wrote: > > > >> There is an easy fix to revert the default behavior while still allowing >> knowledgeable sysadmins to get the new behavior. On the other hand, >> those who need to administer systems but are not

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-12 Thread Adam Borowski
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 08:42:50PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 12 juillet 2017 17:35 +0200, Marc Haber  : > >>> sudo ip link; sudo ip addr; > >> > >>no need for sudo, this is enough: > >> > >>ip link ; ip addr > >> > >>or even shorter: > >> > >>ip l ; ip a > >

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-12 Thread Roger Lynn
On 10/07/17 19:40, Marvin Renich wrote: > There is an easy fix to revert the default behavior while still allowing > knowledgeable sysadmins to get the new behavior. On the other hand, > those who need to administer systems but are not sysadmins by trade (and > thus will have to do

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-12 Thread Vincent Bernat
❦ 12 juillet 2017 17:35 +0200, Marc Haber  : >>> sudo ip link; sudo ip addr; >> >>no need for sudo, this is enough: >> >>ip link ; ip addr >> >>or even shorter: >> >>ip l ; ip a > > Still, an elderly family member reading this out to you on the phone > is very

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-12 Thread Marc Haber
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 08:38:36 +, Holger Levsen wrote: >On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:44:47AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote: >> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017, Bjørn Mork wrote: >> > Previously I could ask a user to do e.g. 'ifconfig wwan0'. Now? >> >> sudo ip link; sudo ip addr; > >no

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-12 Thread Michael Lustfield
On Jul 12, 2017 03:39, "Holger Levsen" wrote: On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:44:47AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jul 2017, Bjørn Mork wrote: > > Previously I could ask a user to do e.g. 'ifconfig wwan0'. Now? > > sudo ip link; sudo ip addr; no need for sudo, this

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-12 Thread Holger Levsen
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:44:47AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jul 2017, Bjørn Mork wrote: > > Previously I could ask a user to do e.g. 'ifconfig wwan0'. Now? > > sudo ip link; sudo ip addr; no need for sudo, this is enough: ip link ; ip addr or even shorter: ip l ; ip a --

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-11 Thread Don Armstrong
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017, Bjørn Mork wrote: > Previously I could ask a user to do e.g. 'ifconfig wwan0'. Now? sudo ip link; sudo ip addr; and probably also: sudo iw dev|awk '/^phy/'|xargs -IIFACE sudo iw IFACE info -- Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com What I can't

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-11 Thread Bjørn Mork
Samuel Thibault writes: > Vincent Bernat, on lun. 10 juil. 2017 20:55:29 +0200, wrote: > >> Other major distributions are using this new scheme (notably Ubuntu >> which has no reason to have users smarter than ours) > > The reasoning is the converse: non-techy users will

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-10 Thread Samuel Thibault
Vincent Bernat, on lun. 10 juil. 2017 20:55:29 +0200, wrote: > but there is nothing difficult in identifying the right interface with > the new naming scheme. Errr, it may not look difficult to *you*, but to someone who is learning how to tinker Linux, things like enp0s25f1 looks really difficult

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-10 Thread Vincent Bernat
❦ 10 juillet 2017 14:36 -0400, Marvin Renich  : > The only benefit I have seen between the new scheme and the previous > one is that there is no state file. While getting rid of the state > file is a nice goal, it is extremely minor compared to having short, > simple names in

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-10 Thread Marvin Renich
* Marco d'Itri [170710 13:12]: > On Jul 10, Adam Borowski wrote: > > > Predictability is important, thus let's actually have _predictable_ > > interface names. The kernel default, eth0 and wlan0, is good enough for > > most users, why not keep that? Even

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-10 Thread Bjørn Mork
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes: > On Jul 10, Adam Borowski wrote: > >> Predictability is important, thus let's actually have _predictable_ >> interface names. The kernel default, eth0 and wlan0, is good enough for >> most users, why not keep that? Even just ignoring

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-10 Thread Adam Borowski
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 07:11:58PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jul 10, Adam Borowski wrote: > > > Predictability is important, thus let's actually have _predictable_ > > interface names. The kernel default, eth0 and wlan0, is good enough for > > most users, why not keep

Re: New network interface naming scheme [was Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system]

2017-07-10 Thread Vincent Bernat
❦ 10 juillet 2017 18:37 +0200, Adam Borowski  : >> > The cost of a state file (/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules) is >> > extremely small, even in the very worst case where a user continually >> > plugs in many, many different usb network dongles, which is a very >>

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-10 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Jul 10, Adam Borowski wrote: > Predictability is important, thus let's actually have _predictable_ > interface names. The kernel default, eth0 and wlan0, is good enough for > most users, why not keep that? Even just ignoring the issue completely Because you cannot know

Re: New network interface naming scheme [was Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system]

2017-07-10 Thread Adam Borowski
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 06:05:06PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 10 juillet 2017 09:38 -0400, Marvin Renich  : > > > The cost of a state file (/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules) is > > extremely small, even in the very worst case where a user continually > > plugs in

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-10 Thread Adam Borowski
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 03:47:14PM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 01:57:08PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > > > eth0 will be kept on upgrades, but new installs get new interface names > > (that is good, that removed unpredictability if you add a new network card.) > >

Re: New network interface naming scheme [was Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system]

2017-07-10 Thread Vincent Bernat
❦ 10 juillet 2017 09:38 -0400, Marvin Renich  : > The cost of a state file (/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules) is > extremely small, even in the very worst case where a user continually > plugs in many, many different usb network dongles, which is a very > unrealistic

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-10 Thread Guus Sliepen
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 01:57:08PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > eth0 will be kept on upgrades, but new installs get new interface names > (that is good, that removed unpredictability if you add a new network card.) Interface names are, unfortunately, as unpredictable in stretch as they were in

New network interface naming scheme [was Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system]

2017-07-10 Thread Marvin Renich
First, the original thread belongs on debian-user, not debian-devel. Please move the "how do I use the new (more than a decade old) networking tools" user question there. * Rene Engelhard [170710 08:03]: >

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-10 Thread Maximilian Althaus
Hi! Thanks, but this do not help me. I have still the same error. http://prntscr.com/ftv2uj This is a screenshot when I start the networking service and it failed, because of there is no route command! -- This is the config for (/etc/network/interfaces) auto lo iface lo inet

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-10 Thread Adam Borowski
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 01:57:08PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 01:44:00PM +0200, Maximilian Althaus wrote: > >Okay, I understand! But I have the problem that the Debian 9 VM can not > > No, you don't. You already got told about ip -r. "route" and "ifconfig" are >

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-10 Thread Rene Engelhard
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 01:44:00PM +0200, Maximilian Althaus wrote: >Okay, I understand! But I have the problem that the Debian 9 VM can not No, you don't. You already got told about ip -r. "route" and "ifconfig" are not installed per default anymore. >get an internet connection. This is

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-10 Thread Maximilian Althaus
Hi! Okay, I understand! But I have the problem that the Debian 9 VM can not get an internet connection. This is because the network configuration (/etc/network/interfaces) fail, because Debian 9.0 could not found a device named eth0, but with Debian 8.8 with the same configuration I have no

Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-10 Thread Maximilian Althaus
Hi Nicholas! Thanks for this information, I will change my configuration to the new one. Cheers, Maximilian Nicholas D Steeves 10. July 2017 at 1:49 AM P.S. That cheat sheet isn't nearly as nice...as I'd like it to be I wish it was a compact printable two or three

P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system

2017-07-09 Thread Nicholas D Steeves
P.S. That cheat sheet isn't nearly as nice...as I'd like it to be I wish it was a compact printable two or three column reference with net-tools commands in bold and the short-form iw equivalent underneath. eg: 'ip -r r' is more or less equivalent to 'route' signature.asc Description: Digital