Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:44:04 +0100 lee <lee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Tim <ignored_mailbox@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > There does appear to be some NetworkManager interface through the >> > command line. Dunno whether it's going to be of any use to you, >> > though. >> >> Hm I didn't find out what it is yet. > > man nmcli > man nm-tool > man nm-online > man NetworkManager > man NetworkManager.conf Ah, thank you, I'll look at them :) Seems like it's even worse than I thought, considering this inconsistancy in the naming. It would have to be NMcli, etc. ... > If you prefer a GUI to control NetworkManager, you probably want to > > yum install NetworkManager-gnome > > and start nm-applet utility, which should land in your > system-tray/dock/whatever, and from where you can do everything else. Hm I don't have a tray or dock, never found that useful. I've got iconbox in fvwm because the icons need to go /somewhere/ where I can find them, and it keeps getting in the way. I3 has a better solution to that ... thinking of which, maybe it's possible to configure fvwm to have the same ... >> > As may have been pointed out in this thread, but definitely in the >> > past, NetworkManager is probably not be suitable for servers. It >> > is geared towards having something else configure your network, >> > usually a server is self-configured, or at least the central server >> > is (the one everything else relies on). >> >> It's a very strange idea that something else should configure the >> network. > > Why do you consider such a scenario to be strange? It just feels strange, and I've seen it not working. > The dhcp was > invented for precisely this purpose. It is widely used on laptops and > other mobile devices, in home&office environments for desktops, etc. > > Typically only servers need to have a static IP. And even that can be > remote-configured by the dhcp server. In fact, the dhcp server itself > is the only one requiring a static manually-configured IP. Everything > else can be configured by a remote dhcp server. DHCP has its advantages and disadvantages ... >> Anyway, I still want to know, even with networkmanager disabled. It >> doesn't hurt to learn something new :) >> >> > I have to admit I'm intrigued to find out what would happen if you >> > ran a DHCP server on a machine with NetworkManager handling the >> > network interfaces. But not sufficiently to try it out, at 2:30 in >> > the morning. >> >> It probably won't work because there won't be any network interfaces >> configured the DHCP server could use to receive broadcasts and send >> answers so that networkmanager could configure such interfaces. > > The dhcp server requires a NIC with a static IP (it cannot serve > itself). If NetworkManager is configured so that it assigns a static IP > to that particular interface, dhcp will be happy, and everything will > work well. > > It can even serve the IPs for other NICs on the same machine (if any > are present), and NetworkManager will pick those up and configure > them, if they are set up to use dhcp... ;-) And you neither need networkmanager, nor DHPC when you just configure static IPs :) >> > Regarding trying to find its configuration files, I would have tried >> > something like: locate -i networkmanager |grep etc > > I doubt that in normal circumstances one would ever need to manually > edit files in /etc/NetworkManager/. All configuration files that are > related to the actual network interfaces (used by NM) are > in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/, among which the most interesting > are the ifcfg-* files. Those are probably the only files that one could > be motivated to hand-edit. At least in normal circumstances, and in > the absence of a GUI utility. Well I did edit the ifcfg-* files, and networkmananger didn't agree and destroyed /etc/resolv.conf. Now I could say that networkmanager should be able to detect when someone edits the relevant files and act accordingly. A simple flag-entry like "nm-touch: [yes | no]" in resolv.conf might help a lot already; it could even be in form of a comment which only networkmanager understands so it doesn't interfere with anything else that uses the file. It would still be a very ugly solution ... It would be better if the installer gave you a choice whether to use networkmanager or not. I guess they need to fix the dependencies of it first ... What is the procedure to make suggestions like that? Create a bug report for networkmanager? -- Fedora 17 -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
