On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 22:55 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 05.03.08 16:43, Dan Williams (dcbw@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > > > > Are those people...looking at using zeroconf. I get the reasoning for > > > > avoiding NM in a more controlled networking situation... but zeroconf > > > > seems like NM's bread and butter to me... but what the hell do i know. > > > > > > > > -jef > > > > > > > > > How about static IPs and multiple concurrent networks? I couldn't get > > > either to work with network manager in F8 > > > > A single static IP per interface works pretty well if you use the NM in > > updates-testing (svn3370) and have set it up to use static IP in > > system-config-network. Multiple IPs per interface will come eventually. > > It'll even work before login. > > > > Multiple concurrent networks are what I'm working on right now; pretty > > good progress here and I hope to land something in the next week or so > > in F9, and when it's pretty solid it will also show up in F8. > > I haven't been following NM development lately. Just wondering: is > there an option to explicitly select IPV4LL for configuring an IP > address, instead of relying on dhcp-with-ipv4ll-fallback? This could Yes, I'm thinking through that. We do need separate booleans for DHCP and IPv4 LL. > be very useful for speeding up configuration in networks where most > likely no dhcp is around, such as wlan ad-hoc, bluetooth pan, ethernet The problem is that some people want DHCP on their WLAN adhoc networks... I still need to figure out how the Apple connection sharing works; they use IPv4 LL addresses in the created Ad-Hoc network but I don't know how other machines get the default route to the one sharing its connection. Possibly the router announces itself with Avahi or something. > cross cable, usb-to-usb, ... Those ad-hoc networks are usually created The problem with some of these, especially cable-to-cable, is that you can't distinguish it from a situation where you do want DHCP. Ie, you cannot really distinguish between a crossover cable and a standard plug into a switch. Same with WLAN ad-hoc. > _ad hoc_ i.e. temporarily, and thus configuration should be quick. So > it'd be best if nm wouldn't do dhcp in these situations to avoid the > long timeout. i.e. what I am thinking is: besides "dhcp" and "static" > configuration for network interfaces, allow a special "zeroconf" > configuration option. For the aforementioned ad-hoc network types > default to "zeroconf", for the others to "dhcp" -- and then, allow > people to switch to the other mode if they are so crazy to have a wlan > ad-hoc network with dhcp, or a wlan infrastracture network without. There does need to be more thought here; but I'm leaning towards defaulting connections created when the user explicitly shares an existing connection (ie, you pick "Share this mobile broadband card over wireless") to zeroconf. In the end there will still be booleans in the config to mark DHCP yes/no and zeroconf yes/no. I'm wondering if the zeroconf option should be mutually exclusive with any of the others; ie would you ever want to have a secondary IPv4 LL address at the same time as you have a non-LL address. Dan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
