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

Re: Proposal: enable stateless persistant network interface names

* Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> [2015-05-11 05:55]:

> On May 08, Martin Pitt <mpitt@debian.org> wrote:
> > I propose to retire [mac], i. e. drop
> > /lib/udev/rules.d/75-persistent-net-generator.rules and enable
> > [ifnames] by default.
> I see a large enough consensus about switching by default to ifnames, 
> and I believe that the few people who want MAC-based names for USB 
> interfaces can easily set NamePolicy=mac or write a custom rule.

I'm not sure we had consensus at that time, however after the discussion
has pretty much ended now it seems, at least to me, that your proposal
is the best way to go forward.

> I am not sure that we really need to retire 75-persistent-net-generator 
> right now: the annoying part to maintain is the kernel patch which we 
> will need anyway for at least a couple of releases, and once we make it 
> use em* or eno* instead of eth* then it should be robust.
> It is trivial to make it opt-in by setting something like net.ifnames=0 
> (or even a different and specific value), and we can revisit this 
> decision when we will be closer to the release.
> > So we can only let time and replacing/reinstalling machines take care
> > of this. /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules requires zero
> > maintenance from us (it's just like the admin had manually set their
> > own rules).
> Actually it requires us to keep maintaining the 
> Revert-udev-network-device-renaming patch as long as there will be 
> systems with a 70-persistent-net.rules file renaming eth* to eth*.

Does it make sense to stop shipping it on new installations rsn, provide
legacy support in stretch but disable it (and remove support) with the
following release? Or do you see the necessity to already do a hard-way
upgrade for stretch, disabling 70-persistent-net.rules but giving the
local admin a manual way to reenable it or a sample udev file to
reenable its functionality?

yours Martin

Reply to: