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

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

On Tue,09.Feb.10, 23:06:08, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Andrei Popescu put forth on 2/9/2010 3:37 AM:
> > On Mon,08.Feb.10, 16:33:39, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >  
> >> So, are you saying it didn't happen?  Couldn't have happened?  Shouldn't have
> >> happened?  I'm imagining things?  Are you kidding?
> >  
> > No, I'm saying that under normal circumstances it should work.
> I don't recall the exact circumstances.

Do you recall the time frame? The first mention of the 
persistent-net-generator.rules in changelog.Debian.gz is from 21 Apr 
2006. That means etch was the first stable release to include it.
> I don't know anything about these scripts.  When do they run?  And are they
> supposed to pin a mac addr to eth* name?  That obviously didn't work if that's
> the case.  Both these NICs have hard MAC addresses, as is required by the 802
> standard for any add-in ethernet card.  It seems clear that the cause of the
> UDEV device naming problem was me swapping cards around.
Yes, the rule is supposed to pin by MAC. There were some issues with 
built-in nvidia adapters which had a different MAC on each reboot (some 
firmware bug, but I might be wrong)

> > Since your bug is quite unique (or at least no reports here on d-u) I 
> > doubt it's good advice to tell someone having troubles with networking 
> > to edit udev rules, especially since the OP mentioned the interface 
> > names were ok and consistent.
> The mere existence of this Debian doc (and others) suggests that this UDEV
> eth0/eth1/etc naming problem is fairly common.  Common enough for people to take
> the time to write a lengthy help document.
> http://www.debianhelp.co.uk/udev.htm

I can't find a date on that document.

> This was a pretty lengthy thread, many suggestions were made, and I was not the
> only one looking at udev device naming as potentially part of the OP's problem,
> yet you singled me out....hmm.  I find it interesting that you single me out for
> this, given that in one post I firmly identified the root cause of the OP's
> problem, and recommended a solution, whilst telling the OP to come back and look
> at udev _only_ if he had device naming issues _after_ the root problem was solved.

Sorry if it looked like that. It was not my intention.

> Are you a UDEV developer or maintainer by chance Andrei?


>                                                 Did my statement below
> "I hate UDEV for this" strike a nerve and prompt your entry into this thread?
> If so please accept my apologies.  I was merely stating _my_ perspective on my
> experience with my udev issue, not making any blanket statement about the
> quality of UDEV.  I save that kind of remark for later, in the event I have
> problems with UDEV in the future. ;)

Udev has created (and probably will still create) a lot of problems, no 
doubt about it.

> Note how little text I devote to UDEV below, but how much I devote to the
> firmware issue which I correctly identified as the root cause of the OP's
> problem?  I think your jumping on my UDEV comments is unjustified given the
> facts in the thread.

I merely tried to point out that the naming issues are a thing of the 
past (not counting hidden bugs). Please accept my apologies if I 
offended you in any way.

Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: