New network interface naming scheme [was Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system]
- Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 09:38:36 -0400
- From: Marvin Renich <mrvn@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: New network interface naming scheme [was Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system]
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 <rene@xxxxxxxxxx> [170710 08:03]:
> 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.)
I do want to respond to this, though. (I see Adam already has, as
The new interface naming scheme seemed to have two primary goals: to
have reproducible interface names, and to avoid using a state file.
There also appeared to be a very minor goal of having short, simple
names when easily done.
I am very disappointed at the outcome, because I believe having short,
simple names in _all_ cases is more important than not using a state
file, by _at least_ an order of magnitude.
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 case to begin with.
On the other hand, the cost of having to deal with wlxf81a671bcfae just
because you are using a usb dongle is considerable, and this is a very
realistic and much more common case.
This is a case of misplaced design priorities that has turned out very
badly. I would like to see /lib/udev/rules.d/80-net-setup-link.rules
moved somewhere that is not used by default (e.g.
/usr/share/udev/optional-rules/) and only used if the sysadmin
explicitly links to it in /etc/udev/rules.d/.
Thanks, Adam, for the clue about how to disable this!