[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal v2: enable stateless persistant network interface names

* Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> [150625 07:27]:
> On Jun 25, Martin Pitt <mpitt@debian.org> wrote:
> > Unlike /dev nodes, network interfaces can't have aliases as far as I
> > know. Am I missing anything?
> No. As is usual with udev, the people who do not understand how it works 
> are always ready to propose solutions.
> -- 
> ciao,
> Marco

I think what some people are missing in this discussion is the relative
importance of two design goals.  In the original message, one of the
stated design goals was to eliminate the state file in /etc (or /var,
which might be a better place for it).  The obfuscated interface names
are a direct result of attempting to achieve that goal.

The goal that wasn't on the list, but should have been, was to have
interface names that a human sysadmin could easily recognize,
distinguish, and type _on the command line_.  This goal is at least an
order of magnitude (I think two orders of magnitude) more important than
eliminating the state file.

Think about it.  Any program can deal with any name or naming
convention.  It doesn't matter whether the name is obfuscated or not.  A
human sysadmin, however, has a much easier time using eth2 than
enx3c52ca.  Binary ids are for programs; short, easy-to-use names are
for humans.

If the priority of the goals is realigned to make sense, then we must
eliminate any solution that satisfies the no-state-file goal if it does
not also satisfy the human-usable goal.  If this brings us back to where
we currently are, so be it.  But please do not add significant cognitive
burden on the humans who must use the interface names just to get rid of
a state file.  Eliminating the state file is not worth it.

(I'm not saying that a solution that satisfies both can't be found, and
if it is found, that's great.  But the current proposal absolutely fails
the human-usable goal.)


Reply to: