Yep, names like p4p1 are soooo much better than eth0 :-(

Rahul Sundaram metherid at
Sun Oct 16 08:34:46 UTC 2011

On 10/16/2011 01:56 PM, agraham wrote:
> The real problem here is the designers of the concept lost sight of the 
> actual benefit to the user, the problem as I would state is:
> "Provide a means that allows consistent naming of network devices".
> That should have translated into eth0 is "ALWAYS" the first device, eth1 
> is "ALWAYS" the second device etc.. the biosdevname should have then 
> been used to create that relationship and _nothing else_.

Do read the feature description and related discussions.  It's not like
you are the first person to think of this.


More information about the users mailing list