On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 08:12:24AM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > Chuck Anderson wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 02:27:42PM +0100, Adam Tkac wrote: >>> Crucial thing is static IPs which NM can't handle. >> >> False. > > If you bring up a mix of static and dynamically assigned interfaces, can > you control which gets to assign the default route and DNS servers? The last time I looked at the code, NM had a hard-coded policy for how it assigns the default route and DNS servers. If you only have one interface with a default route and the other interfaces don't have a default route, then the DNS and default route for that interface is set. If you have more than one, I believe it picks based on the hard-coded policy, which I believe is wired first, then wireless, then dialup/mobile broadband. In the face of multiple wired connections, I'm not sure what the policy is. Yes, NM needs to grow the ability to specify policy outside of the code. It also needs IPv6 support (coming soon I hear), alias support, bridging support, bonding support, VLANs, etc. if it is to replace the "network" service on servers. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
