Hi Tony,
can you open a issue on github about that ?
(https://github.com/inverse-inc/packetfence/issues)
It's more a bug.
Regards
Fabrice
Le 19-02-27 à 18 h 39, Tony W via PacketFence-users a écrit :
Hi Fabrice,
Just getting back to you on the issue of naming interfaces "the old
way" in CentOS7.6
I have discovered that there is an issue using the "old" aming
convention method with PacketFence and Centos 7.6, as shown in the
link below.
https://sites.google.com/site/syscookbook/rhel/rhel-network-interface-rename-rhel7
PF strips the MAC address from the ifcfg-ethX when saving changes.
Centos relies on the MAC address being in the ifcfg-ethX file.
Example of PF generated ifcfg-eth0:
/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0
DEVICE=eth0
HWADDR=
ONBOOT=yes
BOOTPROTO=static
NM_CONTROLLED=no
IPADDR=192.168.1.200
NETMASK=255.255.255.0
This is what it should look like
DEVICE=eth0
NAME=eth0
HWADDR=ab:cd:ef:12:34:56
ONBOOT=yes
BOOTPROTO=static
NM_CONTROLLED=no
IPADDR=192.168.1.200
NETMASK=255.255.255.0
The second listing has the MAC address and the NAME. According to the
documentation I have found, CentOS7/RHEL7 requires the HWADDR and NAME
to be populated.
Centos7 uses "/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistant-net.rules" to set up the
interfaces with the correct name.
Example for the above scenario:
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*",
ATTR{address}=="ab:cd:ef:12:34:56", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*",
NAME="eth0"
When you pass "net.ifnames=0" to the kernel during boot, and have
"/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistant-net.rules" correctly populated, the
system will correctly assign the interfaces so that you get consistent
assignment of IP addresses to the correct physical ports.
If you boot Centos7 after PF has saved the configuration, the system
comes back with the "normal" em1, em2 etc. names and creates files
like ifcfg-em1
This effectively disables PF.
Is there an easy way of getting PF to not strip the MAC address and
NAME from the ifcfg-eth0 file? I have not been able to find anywhere
in the GUI to add a MAC address.
Is there somewhere I can make a mod to fix this? Not sure if many
people use the "old" way but there are a few benefits in doing so in
certain circumstances.
Maybe this could be added in an update or a patch...
Tony
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 01:20, Fabrice Durand via PacketFence-users
<packetfence-users@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
Hello Tony,
Le 19-02-17 à 23 h 22, Tony W via PacketFence-users a écrit :
Hi Fabrice,
Thank you for that.
So for PF, set 1 external interface (WAN) with Internet access (Inline)
...
...
Just a quick question specific to CentOS 7.6 and PF.
CentOS 7.x issues interface names like em1, em2, p2p1, p2p2 etc.,
instead of the old style eth0, eth1...
Will PF still work OK, if I change this to the old style (See link below)?
https://sites.google.com/site/syscookbook/rhel/rhel-network-interface-rename-rhel7
Yes it will work.
I feel more comfortable using the old interface naming convention and
the above procedure works well:-)
Regards
Fabrice
...
--
Fabrice Durand
fdur...@inverse.ca :: +1.514.447.4918 (x135) :: www.inverse.ca
Inverse inc. :: Leaders behind SOGo (http://www.sogo.nu) and PacketFence
(http://packetfence.org)
...
_______________________________________________
PacketFence-users mailing list
PacketFence-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users
_______________________________________________
PacketFence-users mailing list
PacketFence-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users
--
Fabrice Durand
fdur...@inverse.ca :: +1.514.447.4918 (x135) :: www.inverse.ca
Inverse inc. :: Leaders behind SOGo (http://www.sogo.nu) and PacketFence
(http://packetfence.org)
_______________________________________________
PacketFence-users mailing list
PacketFence-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users
