Web lists-archives.com

Re: Question to new network device names




On 2017-08-24 at 07:52, tomas@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 01:11:27PM +0200, Hans wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
> 
>> I stumbled over the new network names (i.e. wl0p8 instead of wlan0), and of 
>> course I know, that this is obviously the newe standard (please correct me, i 
>> I am wrong).

>> So, what is the status today? How have people accepted the new names also for 
>> long running systems? 
> 
> I'd say: if you have a box with a huge number of interfaces, or if your
> interface's hardware is brought up dynamically (picture a bunch of USB
> hubs with 16 eth interface adapters at its tips, to have something your
> phantasy can attach to), where the loading order of the corresponding
> kernel modules determine who is first and who is last, whoever is eth0
> and whoever is eth15 may change from boot to boot.
> 
> You don't want that, especially when those are attached to different
> networks (picture a firewall/router...)
> 
> A similar case is when the interfaces come and go (e.g. plugging in and
> out said USB adapters. All this doesn't need to be USB -- in the more
> expensive world you can plug in (and out!) RAM and CPUs, while the
> system is running).
> 
> Predictable names (try to) bring up the "same" interface with the "same"
> name each time (although "same" itself isn't well-defined; IMHO this
> makes a 100% job impossible anyway).

However, I'll point out that machines with this many network interfaces
are *by far* the exception rather than the rule; indeed, even machines
with more than *one* interface each of wired and wireless are reasonably
rare. As such, the scenario in which this naming scheme makes interface
names more predictable is not one which most people will ever encounter.
(...which calls into question the appropriateness of making this scheme
the default.)

To the best of my awareness, the rationale for calling this "predictable
network interface names" is that, on a single computer which has
multiple network interfaces of a given type, this naming scheme makes
it possible to predict *from one boot to the next* what the name of each
one will be. On such a computer, this is extremely valuable.

By contrast, on a computer which has at most one interface of a given
type, this naming scheme provides - so far as I can tell - no advantage
at all.

What's more, when working on *multiple* computers of that latter type,
this naming scheme makes it impossible to predict *from one computer to
the next* what the name of the sole available interface will be.

As such, IMO this naming scheme makes network-interface names
significantly *less* predictable in the real-world scenario which is
most commonly encountered.

On that basis and from that perspective, the choice of "predictable
network interface names" as the label for this naming scheme seems
downright Orwellian.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature