> Le 26/08/2017 à 14:14, Alessandro Selli a écrit :
>>>       My main subject was questionning the necessity of renaming network
>>> interfaces (with my answer to the question). Since nobody argumented
>>> that renaming was necessary, it is clear for me that renaming is a
>>> feature invented to give more importance to Udev and isn't necessary at
>>> all.  
>>    Actually Adam Borowski did.  Did you miss this message of his posted on
>> the 20th?
>> https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20170820.142726.04720725.en.html  

>      Adam proposed that the renaming happens in a different namespace so 
> as to not clash with kernel naming new interfaces asynchronously. At 
> this stage of the thread, the necessity of interface renaming was not 
> yet questioned; at least this mail of Adam was not an opinion on wether 
> renaming was necessary/useful or not.

    * interface names changing randomly at boot are nasty for machines
      with multiple non-bonded interfaces. As drivers are loaded by the
      kernel in parallel, they're inherently racey, thus kernel ordering
      may change.

    Thus, I think the best long-term solution would be writing a
    generation, using either *udev or ifupdown, that learns new
    interfaces as they come, and names them using a single namespace
    that's not "eth0"/"wlan0". In particular, a machine with only a
    single interface (ie, 99% of them) would predictably have en0 and
    possibly wl0.

    But sticking with just kernel names would still be much better than
    the enp0s3 idea. It'd be _predictable_ in that 99% case; machines
    with multiple interfaces tend to be either routers (which come
    preconfigured) or servers (which have an admin who's supposed to have
    a clue).