2014-04-17 1:42 GMT+02:00 Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 01:24:50AM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:I think we'd stay at two, basically -- right now, we have two in use
> 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
(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.
Is NetworkManager already at the 100% complete feature parity that would make this possible? (Keeping in mind that "possible" and "a good idea" are still not the same...)
> 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.
Would these be prerequisites to making the change?
> 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 networkIt is _largely_ the case that complex networking is done outside of the
> 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.
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.
Well, this particular possibility is strictly black/white—either the completely different configuration and API is exposed, or it isn't; if there are any alternatives to configure at all, it is exposed.
Mirek
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct