Tom H wrote:
>>>> Digging around google a bit more I came up with different rules, and
>>>> fingers crossed, they seem to work!
>>>> SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:1b:21:4d:c3:e8", NAME="eth0"
>>>> # pro/1000gt
>>>> SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:e0:81:b5:7a:30", NAME="eth1"
>>>> # internal 1
>>>> SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:e0:81:b5:7a:31", NAME="eth2"
>>>> # internal 2
>
>> Don't touch udev, expecting admins to write udev rules for network
>> interface binding is just not realistic. Udev rules are meant to be
>> static across hardware reconfigurations while ifcfg files are meant to
>> be modified to suit your current configuration.
>
>> Use HWADDR="00:1b:21:4d:c3:e8" in the ifcfg files along with NAME=eth0
>> for eth0 and so on.
>
> I read a while ago that udev overrode ifcfg-* settings so I did a
> clean install of 5.4 and changed:
> ifcfg-eth0 to ifcfg-eth9 (file name)
> eth0 to eth9 (inside the file)
> the last number of the HWADDR line
Do you mean that you changed the HWADDR line so it no longer matched the actual
nic mac address? In that case, you shouldn't expect it to work.
> The nic came up as eth0 with the old/original mac address after a reboot.
>
> So we unfortunately have to write udev rules when we have nic naming problems...
I think the ifcfg-eth? files work when they match the nic mac addresses. They
may have to all match for any of them to work, though. I've seen some cases
where they all get renamed with a .bak extension and new ones are created but I
don't know what triggers that.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
