On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 15:54 +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote: > On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 09:28:48AM -0500, Dan Williams wrote: > > Config for 0.7 will be much more flexible in addition to allowing > > system-wide configuration. The page here explains at least the > > _conceptual_ structure of how the configuration should work. Some of > > the implementation details are up in the air until we figure out how > > they relate to/fit in with PolicyKit, which we're looking at now. > > > > http://live.gnome.org/NetworkManagerConfiguration > > Hmmm, looks like this kind of definition is going to have a hard time > working in real setups. Lemme give you some examples of what I use on > a regular basis: Which is why it's good to have feedback :) So at least the 'gateway' item needs to be re-thought, since that's route-based and not interface/connection specific underneath. Though to many users it appears so, because they do not have complex setups, the flexibility needs to be there underneath. > - eth0 has a static IP in 192.44.78/24, DNS, gw, etc, and also has a > static route allowing to use the interface for 192.168.87.0/24 using > its static IP which is not in 192.168.* Can you explain the configuration for these in a bit more detail? So in this example, eth0 has a static IP and DNS, gw, etc are _also_ in the same 192.44.78/24 network. But you've added a route that pushes traffic for the 192.168.87.0/24 network over eth0 (which has no IP address in that network range), correct? > - eth0 has a static IP in 192.44.78/24, DNS, gw. eth1 has an IP in > 192.168.87/24. I think the config would cover that, no? Each interface can obviously have different IP settings (addr, mask, bcast). DNS is a bit different because the order of resolvers in resolv.conf determines some of the behavior, even if the routing rules determine which interface the requests against a particular server actually go out on. What does the output of /sbin/route -n look like for this case? > - eth0 and eth1 have the same static IP in 192.168.87/24, eth1 has the > route for 192.168.87/24, eth0 has only a route for 192.44.78/24. I'm not sure the configuration mentioned above excludes this possibility, can you be more specific on how you couldn't configure your interfaces this way in the proposed config structure? (keeping in mind that gateway should be handled differently than the config structure says) Dan > To that you can sometimes add another interface on another private > network for iSCSI. Interfaces, addresses, routes, gateways and > upper-level services (DNS, NIS...) are orthogonal for a reason. NM > needs to keep this orthogonality at the lower configuration level > otherwise there is no chance it will work in real-world setups. Well, there's certainly a relationship between interfaces and addresses > Nobody has the intellectual capacity to imagine all the possible > setups that exist out there, especially when historical reasons are > involved. > > Even on laptops you can have fun scenarios, for instance I've more > than once used my laptop which was connected to an hotel's internet > through ethernet as a wifi relay for my SO's laptop. So don't forget > ad-hoc wifi connections, masquerading and forwarding ;-) > > OG. > > > -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
