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

[agraham]

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.

Albert