On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 10:38:20AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 04:32:32PM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > When the persistent schema came up, I took interest in it, [...] > > > but for me and my installations, it wasn't worth the more > > complicated names. I still do "sudo ifup eth0" and don't really > > want to do "sudo ifup &$#*@%#". > > You are NOT talking about the udev persistent naming scheme. You > are talking about the systemd predictable naming scheme. > > VERY different creatures. I see, thanks. I must admit that I don't know very much about how systemd names network interfaces. In practice, what I get to see roughly follows the known conventions (bus number, etc). Udev is/was just a mechanism to implement those conventions. Or different ones. > Under the systemd (current) scheme, you can choose whatever name > you like for the interface. If you want to call it "red", you can > call it "red", and then plug a red cable in it. Is it using something else than udev, these days? Cheers -- tomás
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature