Re: Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 02:21:13PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 07:06:51AM +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 08:50:55PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > em* and p?p? come from biosdevname, which should not be used and is > > > >

Re: Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

Am 11.11.2015 um 16:23 schrieb Björn Persson: I tend to not listen much to people who tell me to do stuff without stating any reasons. If you want me to change, and you're not in a position to give me orders, then you need to explain why the thing I'm doing is bad. For MAC based name

Re: Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

Harald Hoyer wrote: > Am 08.11.2015 um 17:14 schrieb Björn Persson: > > Christopher wrote: > >> I recently updated my desktop to f23, and it went smoothly, for the most > >> part. However, it broke my mediatomb server because the NIC changed

Re: Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:21 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 07:06:51AM +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 08:50:55PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > em* and p?p? come from biosdevname, which should not be used and

Re: Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

On 11/10/2015 06:06 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 08:50:55PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: em* and p?p? come from biosdevname, which should not be used and is deprecated. I'm merely observing what happened when I updated a bunch of servers from F22 to F23. I didn't

Re: Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 07:06:51AM +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 08:50:55PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > em* and p?p? come from biosdevname, which should not be used and is > > > deprecated. > > > > I'm merely observing what happened when I updated a bunch of

Re: Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Their NICs changed from p6p1 -> enp3s0. It was annoying because I had > to boot each one with a display and keyboard and change the network > configuration by hand. > > "predictable, stable network interface names" >

Re: Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 08:50:55PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > em* and p?p? come from biosdevname, which should not be used and is > > deprecated. > > I'm merely observing what happened when I updated a bunch of servers > from F22 to F23. I didn't intentionally install nor uninstall

Re: Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

Am 08.11.2015 um 20:29 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones: > On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 05:28:54PM +, Christopher wrote: >> I recently updated my desktop to f23, and it went smoothly, for the most >> part. However, it broke my mediatomb server because the NIC changed from >> em1 to eno1. >> >> Is this

Re: Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

On Sun, 2015-11-08 at 20:36 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 08.11.2015 um 20:29 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones: > > On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 05:28:54PM +, Christopher wrote: > >> I recently updated my desktop to f23, and it went smoothly, for the most > >> part. However, it broke my mediatomb

Re: Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

On 11/08/2015 07:29 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 05:28:54PM +, Christopher wrote: I recently updated my desktop to f23, and it went smoothly, for the most part. However, it broke my mediatomb server because the NIC changed from em1 to eno1. Is this something that

Re: Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

Am 08.11.2015 um 17:14 schrieb Björn Persson: > Christopher wrote: >> I recently updated my desktop to f23, and it went smoothly, for the most >> part. However, it broke my mediatomb server because the NIC changed from >> em1 to eno1. > > On any computer where it

Re: Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 04:55:40PM +0100, Harald Hoyer wrote: > Am 08.11.2015 um 20:29 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones: > > On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 05:28:54PM +, Christopher wrote: > >> I recently updated my desktop to f23, and it went smoothly, for the most > >> part. However, it broke my

Re: Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

Christopher wrote: > I recently updated my desktop to f23, and it went smoothly, for the most > part. However, it broke my mediatomb server because the NIC changed from > em1 to eno1. On any computer where it matters which network interface is connected to which

Re: Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 05:28:54PM +, Christopher wrote: > I recently updated my desktop to f23, and it went smoothly, for the most > part. However, it broke my mediatomb server because the NIC changed from > em1 to eno1. > > Is this something that was expected? It certainly surprised me. It

Re: Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

Am 08.11.2015 um 21:25 schrieb Christopher: On Sun, Nov 8, 2015, 14:29 Richard W.M. Jones enp3s0. It was annoying because I had to boot each one with a display

Re: Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

Am 08.11.2015 um 20:42 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones: On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 08:36:57PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 08.11.2015 um 20:29 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones: On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 05:28:54PM +, Christopher wrote: I recently updated my desktop to f23, and it went smoothly, for

Re: Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

Reindl Harald wrote: > a skilled sysadmin can solve all that problems at his own, a non-skilled > has repeatly problems to solve which did not exist in the past where > eth0 was normal I guess you were lucky in the past. My experience was that interface names were

Re: Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 08:36:57PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 08.11.2015 um 20:29 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones: > >On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 05:28:54PM +, Christopher wrote: > >>I recently updated my desktop to f23, and it went smoothly, for the most > >>part. However, it broke my

Re: Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

On Sun, Nov 8, 2015, 14:29 Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 05:28:54PM +, Christopher wrote: > I recently updated my desktop to f23, and it went smoothly, for the most > part. However, it broke my mediatomb server because the NIC changed from > em1 to

Re: Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

> Maybe giving permanent names to network interfaces (of our own choice > or from a standard set) is something we should be able to choose at > installation time? Actually, what people want is to forbid any renaming during updates, because that breaks all kinds of stuff. The system should keep

Re: Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

Am 08.11.2015 um 22:59 schrieb Björn Persson: Reindl Harald wrote: a skilled sysadmin can solve all that problems at his own, a non-skilled has repeatly problems to solve which did not exist in the past where eth0 was normal I guess you were lucky in the past. My

Re: Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

Am 08.11.2015 um 20:29 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones: On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 05:28:54PM +, Christopher wrote: I recently updated my desktop to f23, and it went smoothly, for the most part. However, it broke my mediatomb server because the NIC changed from em1 to eno1. Is this something

Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

I recently updated my desktop to f23, and it went smoothly, for the most part. However, it broke my mediatomb server because the NIC changed from em1 to eno1. Is this something that was expected? It certainly surprised me. In addition to the mediatomb configuration needing to be changed, I also

Re: Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015, 12:28 Christopher wrote: I recently updated my desktop to f23, and it went smoothly, for the most part. However, it broke my mediatomb server because the NIC changed from em1 to eno1. Is this something that was expected? It certainly surprised