On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 17:09 +0100, Ola Thoresen wrote: > Dan Williams wrote: > > 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: > >>> > >>> 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. > > > > It is at least important to be able to add multiple addresses to one > (physical) interface. Yep! That's obviously required. > I personally don't like the old eth0:0 eth0:1 (...), but prefer the new That format is vile. > iproute2 style, but I guess I can live with aliases as long as it is > easy to add/remove them. Dan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
