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

New nomeclature of ethernet devices



Hi folks,

there is a little thing, we should either discuss or I should be pointed to 
your solution.

The issue:
Since some time the ethernet devices like wlan0 or eth0 got new names, like 
wlp2s0 or enp0s9 or similar.

Whilst this is no problem to change these manually in /etc/network/interfaces, 
there are a lot of programms with configration files or just scripts, which are 
still using the old names.

Looking to "/etc/init.d/ifplugd" for examle, still eth* and wlan* is used. 
This is only one example. 

So, IMO, this is a problem, which should be discussed. Maybe this is no 
problem whith a fresh installation, but many of us have systems running since 
years. 

The solutions coiming in my mind, are either to change scripts and config files, 
which may read the existing devices (dicovered by the kernel) and then add 
these into its configuration files.

The second solution, is just to add a kernel paramter, which renames the 
devices (net.ifrenames=0?). But doing so, great, then you do need not the 
special kernel function for the devices. I think, this is not the good idea.

The third solution, coming into my mind, is to manually edit all the 
configurations and the scripts, too. Also no good idea, because after an 
update, all scripts and "maybe" configuration files are overwritten.

Thinking of all solutions, there is not a really good one. The easiest is, 
adding the kernel parameter into /etc/default/grub and forget about the rest. 
Is this really, what we want? If so, then the kernel function (finding devices 
and name them) should be removed from the kernel. Unnecessary code.

But: Maybe I am all the way wrong, and I have something not well understood. 
Then please point me to my mistakes. If not, we should find a better solution 
than my suggestions.

Thank you for reading this and your clemency.

Best regards

Hans



 

  

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: