On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 01:24:50AM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> I don't think we can, or should, have three separate network configuration
> systems in Fedora at the same time. We already know how long and painful
I think we'd stay at two, basically -- right now, we have two in use
(NetworkManager and initscripts) and one that's available but not used by
default anywhere (systemd-networkd). This would simply swap the status of
systemd-networkd and initscripts.
> the migration to NetworkManager has been—and AFAICS networkd doesn't
> support any of the icfg-* files, unlike NetworkManager, so it would mean a
> *more* painful migration.
Yeah, as I've said elsewhere, I'd love to see a network unit generator which
takes traditional ifcfg-* files as input. I think we need ifup/ifdown
compatibility scripts, too.
> Also see the recent caching DNS / DNSSEC discussions, which effectively
> move the DNS resolver configuration away from /etc/resolv.conf to a
> NetworkManager API.
I have seen that. I'm not quite done thinking about the implications for
cloud guests, though.
> With what I know so far, this would only make sense to me if the Cloud
> images were explicitly designed to run in a very specific network
> environment (say, everything via DHCP, no VPNs, no IPSec, no bridges,
> nothing else), and telling both users and application developers not to
> touch the configuration in any way.
It is _largely_ the case that complex networking is done outside of the
guests and presented to the guests as simple interfaces. Usually that's one
device with DHCP, but there may be additional interfaces with DHCP or static
interfaces.
--
Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
"Tepid change for the somewhat better!"
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
