Re: Why eth1 and not eth0 ?

[Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com>]

On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 00:07 +0000, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 January 2007 01:33, Dan Williams wrote:
> 
> > > > > > As a matter of interest, why has my NetworkManager
> > > > > > started using eth1 in place of eth0, which it used to use?
> 
> > And that's the point; NM means you don't _need_ to care what the device
> > name is.  Really, you shouldn't ever need to look at it, nor care what
> > it's value is.  I don't tie my devices to MAC addresses, and they switch
> > around every now and again, but it doesn't matter to me as they always
> > do the right thing under NetworkManager.
> 
> As the OP, I don't really mind whether NM (or udev) finds eth0 or eth1.
> I just wondered why one or the other changed.
> 
> Before I went over to NM, the choice between eth0 and eth1
> depended on the entries in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth?
> If there was only an ifcfg-eth0 then only eth0 would be used.
> 
> As far as I can see NM doesn't look at these files.
> I see that my /etc/modprobe.conf contains the lines
> alias eth0 orinoco_cs
> alias eth1 orinoco_cs
> I'm pretty sure I didn't add them - did NM?

No; that's likely the installer or your distros network config tool.  I
believe that system-config-network on Fedora does add stuff to
modprobe.conf to try to ensure that the NIC always gets the same device
name.

Dan


> [I find programs that alter files like this without telling me
> slightly annoying, I must confess.]
> 
>