Is there a way to name a VLAN interface arbitrarily like
ext19 instead of the four standard nameing schemes
vlan19 (and the padded variations)?
Don't have no clue. Perhaps udev?
I didn't have luck with "ip link set dev bond0.10 name ext0". If the interface is up, it gets a BUSY error. If the interface is down, it gets a NOT FOUND error.
What I did have luck with is this: in my base interface definition for bond0,
Now I find that "ifup bond0" not only creates the VLAN as seen in /proc/net/vlan/config and creates the ext0 device, but it even ifup's the ext0 device. bond0.10 never comes into existence.
Not sure if this also applies to Debian, but in Ubuntu (and Red Hat), this is easily done by editing /etc/udev/rules.d/persistent-net.rules (or similar; I'm not in a position to check)
Renaming interfaces has some useful advantages:
You do need to make sure that your team knows to expect this. That's not a problem, it's generally very welcome, particularly when you have many interfaces in a system (eth8 is not unreasonable in an host with redundant bonded links to SAN storage)
Having discussed this recently, if you wanted to rename based on VLAN ID, I would suggest that you consider the following:
In debian you use
Be aware that you should install the
For more information check
On non-debian distros, you can do this same thing with
OMG - it's that easy:
Rename vlan 42 on eth0 to ext2:
In OpenBSD (and presumably other BSDs) you can set a description of an interface with ifconfig using the aptly named
Unfortunately there's no great way to do this in Linux.
In Linux, interfaces are named dynamically with each interface being assigned the first available name. This means that if you pull a NIC and then add another one (say to replace it or upgrade it) there is no guarantee that its interface will remain the same.
Try a program like ifrename which will allow you to manually specify the interface names. It looks primarily designed to assure that
You should be careful to document this as it is not typically done but unlike @MichealHampton I don't see any particular problem with it. I personally make great use of the description field for interfaces in my BSD installs.