Hi Justin, many thanks for the quick follow-up.
Am Mittwoch, 30. August 2023, 07:46:04 CEST schrieben Sie: > Are you saying that armhf machines still used one of the old interface > naming schemes (https://wiki.debian.org/NetworkInterfaceNames) on > bullseye, and hadn't yet switched over to "predictable" names? That is at least what I observed. I don't have insights, why armhf behaves differently here. > For > the architectures I know anything about, interface names like eth0 > disappeared quite a while ago, with particular warnings in the stretch > and buster release notes: > > https://www.debian.org/releases/stretch/amd64/release-notes/ch-whats-new.en. > html#new-interface-names > > https://www.debian.org/releases/buster/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en > .html#migrate-interface-names If I understand the sentence "This change does not apply to upgrades of jessie systems; the naming will continue to be enforced by /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules." correctly, this means old systems stay with the old naming scheme by default, newly installed systems use the new naming scheme. That is an excellent solution, since it does not break existing systems during the upgrade. But what I observed in the armhf install is exactly the opposite. A running bullseye system did not work anymore after the upgrade to bookworm due to the network interface naming change. Since these are often headless systems, you then rely on a serial interface for debugging. As a side note: I have two amd64 kvm cloud hosted machines at different providers. I upgraded one of them to bookworm, both use still uses eth0 as interface name. I see the they have both net.ifnames=0 configured as kernel parameter in /etc/default/grub in the variable GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX. Since I did not actively configure that, I assume that there are quite a few machines out there with disabled Predictable Network Interface renaming behavior. > If the sequence of events has been different on armhf, that might need > a new entry in the "Complications and corner cases" section of the > wiki page. The question is, how exactly did you come to be still > using "eth0" in a bullseye /etc/network/interfaces file? I just run the installer for bullseye on a cubox-i/armhf machine. I do not recall that I did anything special. I could repeat it, but maybe it is better if somebody else does a test (just in case I missed something, it is likely that I miss it again, though I don't know what that could be). > Sure, *if* the change was in bookworm. But if people didn't read > the stretch and buster release notes, why would we expect a warning in > the bookworm release notes to do any good? I am also somewhat concerned that users don't read the release notes carefully, break their systems. This information should probably be in a more prominent place and clearly visible during the upgrade. I liked the previous solution better that systems by default continue to use the old naming scheme. Thanks again Rainer -- Rainer Dorsch http://bokomoko.de/