Re: USB tethering and interface naming on Debian/unstable

2016-05-06 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2016-05-05 20:50:18 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Fri 06 May 2016 at 00:57:35 (+0200), Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2016-05-02 08:49:20 -0500, David Wright wrote: > > > On Mon 02 May 2016 at 11:28:47 (+0200), Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > What is the rule for interface naming when doing USB

Re: USB tethering and interface naming on Debian/unstable

2016-05-05 Thread David Wright
On Fri 06 May 2016 at 00:57:35 (+0200), Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-05-02 08:49:20 -0500, David Wright wrote: > > On Mon 02 May 2016 at 11:28:47 (+0200), Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > What is the rule for interface naming when doing USB tethering > > > on Debian/unstable (with systemd)? > > >

Re: USB tethering and interface naming on Debian/unstable

2016-05-05 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2016-05-02 08:49:20 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 02 May 2016 at 11:28:47 (+0200), Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > What is the rule for interface naming when doing USB tethering > > on Debian/unstable (with systemd)? > > > > In December, I had enx02060b0e, but yesterday, I had enp0s20u2. >

Re: USB tethering and interface naming on Debian/unstable

2016-05-02 Thread David Wright
On Mon 02 May 2016 at 11:28:47 (+0200), Vincent Lefevre wrote: > What is the rule for interface naming when doing USB tethering > on Debian/unstable (with systemd)? > > In December, I had enx02060b0e, but yesterday, I had enp0s20u2. > Isn't the interface supposed to be fixed? Not fixed; but p