Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #185840

Re: Question to new network device names

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu 24 Aug 2017 at 09:17:00 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2017-08-24 at 07:52, tomas@tuxteam.de 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.

Running wheezy and jessie, the lspci output from this laptop included
the lines

 02:02.0 Ethernet controller: Broadcom Corporation NetXtreme BCM5705 Gigabit Ethernet (rev 03)
 02:04.0 Network controller: Intel Corporation PRO/Wireless 2200BG [Calexico2] Network Connection (rev 05)

so it was "predictable¹" that installing stretch would yield these:

 kernel: [  111.443209] tg3 0000:02:02.0 enp2s2: renamed from eth0

 kernel: [  134.994910] ipw2200 0000:02:04.0 wlp2s4: renamed from eth0

in its syslog. In case the eth0 duplication perplexes you, the
wireless card in squeeze, wheezy and jessie is called eth1. Don't ask
me why. That *was* unpredictable AFAICT.

¹Predictability is based on the output of lspci, according to the
page referenced earlier.

Cheers,
David.

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Question to new network device names Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> - 2017-08-24 13:20 +0200
  Re: Question to new network device names Dejan Jocic <jodejka@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 13:40 +0200
  Re: Question to new network device names Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@panix.com> - 2017-08-24 13:50 +0200
  Re: Question to new network device names <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-08-24 14:00 +0200
    Re: Question to new network device names The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-08-24 15:20 +0200
      Re: Question to new network device names <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-08-24 15:30 +0200
      Re: Question to new network device names Dave Sherohman <dave@sherohman.org> - 2017-08-24 15:40 +0200
        Re: Question to new network device names The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-08-24 16:00 +0200
        Re: Question to new network device names Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2017-08-24 16:30 +0200
          Re: Question to new network device names David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-08-24 17:50 +0200
            Re: Question to new network device names The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-08-24 18:10 +0200
              Re: Question to new network device names David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-08-24 18:50 +0200
                Re: Question to new network device names Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2017-08-24 19:10 +0200
                Re: Question to new network device names David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-08-24 20:20 +0200
                Re: Question to new network device names The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-08-25 05:10 +0200
                Re: Question to new network device names David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-08-25 07:30 +0200
            Re: Question to new network device names Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2017-08-24 18:40 +0200
              Re: Question to new network device names David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-08-24 21:30 +0200
              Re: Question to new network device names Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-08-25 03:00 +0200
                Re: Question to new network device names David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-08-25 04:30 +0200
                Re: Question to new network device names Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-08-25 07:00 +0200
                Re: Question to new network device names David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-08-25 07:30 +0200
                Re: Question to new network device names Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-08-25 08:30 +0200
                Re: Question to new network device names Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2017-08-25 15:30 +0200
                Re: Question to new network device names David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-08-25 17:10 +0200
        Re: Question to new network device names Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2017-08-24 17:50 +0200
          Re: Question to new network device names The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-08-24 18:00 +0200
            Re: Question to new network device names David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-08-24 19:00 +0200
              Re: Question to new network device names Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-08-24 19:40 +0200
                Re: Question to new network device names David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-08-24 20:00 +0200
      Re: Question to new network device names David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-08-24 18:20 +0200
  Re: Question to new network device names Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> - 2017-08-25 14:00 +0200

csiph-web