[CentOS] Using eth0 on desktops with single network interface

Al Sparks data345 at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 19 19:35:07 UTC 2012


> From: "m.roth at 5-cent.us" <m.roth at 5-cent.us>
> 
> To: CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 11:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Using eth0 on desktops with single network interface
> 
> Scott Robbins wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 01:22:49PM -0400, Alfred von Campe wrote:
> >> On Apr 19, 2012, at 11:25, Scott Robbins wrote:
> >>
> >> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Features/ConsistentNetworkDeviceNaming
> >>
> >> Removing the biosdevname RPM sounds promising, and I'll test it with a
> >> kickstart install this afternoon.  However, what's the best way to fix
> >> existing systems?  If I just remove the biosdevname RPM and reboot, I
> >> don't think that eth0 will come up, as there is no ifcfg-eth0 script.
> >> Do I have to rename the ifcfg-em1 script and fix the DEVICE name inside
> >> the file?  Or is there a way to regenerate  the ifcfg-eth0 file from the
> >> command line?
> >>
> >
> > What I do is this for an existing one.
> >
> > I change /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-whatever to ifcfg-eth0 (or
> > whatever it might be, e.g., eth0 and eth1).
> >
> > Then, in the file itself, I edit the necessary line.  (I think it's just
> > one line, I don't have one here to look at, but IIRC, it's just the one
> > line that uses pc1p1 or em1 or whatever, and I change that to, for
> > example, eth0).
> >
> > The other lines in the file should be fine--the ones referring to
> > hardware address, IP, and so on.
> >
> > As mentioned, I rename the file.  One then removes the biosdevname
> > package.  I've never gotten it working without a reboot--service network
> > restart doesn't work for me--on the other hand, I think I've only run
> > into it with Fedora so far.
> 
> And with all of that, do *not* forget to edit
> /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules
> 
>      mark
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

This has piqued my curiosity.  I haven't seen that behavior before, and 
I've done some recent installs of CentOS 6.0.

I use yum to upgrade them to CentOS 6.2.  Maybe that's why....

But all my interfaces are named eth*.
    === Al




More information about the CentOS mailing list