Re: New network interface naming scheme [was Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system]
- Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 18:37:38 +0200
- From: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: New network interface naming scheme [was Re: P.S. Re: Debian 9 in a VM with Proxmox 5 system]
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 06:05:06PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 10 juillet 2017 09:38 -0400, Marvin Renich <mrvn@xxxxxxxxxx> :
> > 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.
> The state file solution was not perfect either. If you have two brands
> of NIC (Intel 10G additional NIC and Broadcom 1G integrated NIC for
> example), it was not uncommon to be left with an interface eth0_rename
> after boot because the target name was used by the other driver.
Because of a race with the kernel creating eth1 while you're trying to
rename eth0->eth0_rename->eth1, right? That's trivially solvable by
inventing a new scheme, such as e0 e1 (I'm sure someone can sound a scheme
that sounds better than this).
On the other hand, I use kernel-assigned names on all my machines that don't
have multiple interfaces, thus I don't know how stable
70-persistent-net.rules is on the MAC-less machines. I guess you guys know
more. But even if you take those new "persistent" names as a base for the
state file, we wouldn't gain stability over kernel upgrades but the names
would be actually predictable for the user (ie, the admin would know the
only interface will be "e0").
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ A dumb species has no way to open a tuna can.
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ A smart species invents a can opener.
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ A master species delegates.