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

agraham agraham at
Sun Oct 16 08:48:29 UTC 2011

On 10/16/2011 09:34 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> 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.
> Rahul

Yep, a few weeks ago I wasted a number of hours drilling down and 
reading all the docs, email threads from the beginning and my conclusion 
then was the same as it is now.

I agree in principle with this change, but not the "renaming" of 
existing "well know" device names such that the opposite effect is 
caused by the implementation.


More information about the users mailing list