Should I use wlan0 or wlp0s26u1u1?

[bluephoenix]

Dears,

I am using LINKSYS Compact wireless-G USB adapter and the model number is WUSB54GC. I am using systemd and wpa_supplicant.

I ever used to use wlan0 when I deploy my wifi connection. Everything is OK at that time. But as I updated new kernel (now is 3.12.13) some days ago, I remember some documents suggest me to use wlp0sxxxxxx this kind of interface presentation as a trend. So I disabled all of the valid configuration in "/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules". So the system gave me "wlp0s26u1u1" as the new wlan interface. And then the problem comes.

When I boot or reboot my computer, the system cannot correctly activate the wlan interface. I mean if I use "ifconfig" command, the wlan interface cannot be displayed, whatever "wlan0" or "wlp0s26u1u1". But if I use "lsusb" command, the dongle can be displayed. But if I plug and insert the USB dongle manually, everything becomes OK. I mean if I use "ifconfig" to show, the "wlp0s26u1u1" interface could be displayed, the IP address could be given by the wifi router and I can surf the internet also.

1. I checked the "dmesg" when I initially reboot my computer with the dongle inserted but not insert the dongle after booting as below:

[bluephoenix]

Today I use command "journalctl -r" to show the relative log as below when I try to use wlp0s26u1u1:

[bluephoenix]

I think I found the issue.

if I disable dhcpcd.service from the booting time, but start it after the booting. Everything will be OK.

So I believe as some clue listed in Archlinux website, dhcpcd does't works very smoothly with wifi interface, not like the status with a wire-ethernet interface.

Just till now, I don't know how to make a clean solution.If I can load the dhcpcd at last during the booting time, I think this issue can be solved.

[saellaven]

Keep in mind that, if you use the new naming scheme, should you plug your adapter into any other USB port or possibly even add a USB hub/other devices, you're going to get a different device node and have to change your settings accordingly.

IMO the new naming scheme is extremely broken in related to its stated purposes, but that's a giant can of worms that's already been discussed elsewhere. If the old naming scheme is working for you, there's little harm in sticking with it.

[Aiken]

[bluephoenix]

Thanks, you guys!

I don't know why new naming scheme is developed. But I think there must be some reason. There is a Chinese interesting sentence: " if I don't know why, I feel he is very hard."

Although, I stick to use wlan0 - the old name to keep the stability, I guess if I use systemd-tools to replace udev, maybe it can help something.

I will try it later.

[saellaven]