Re: network-manager as default? No!
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 02:01:06PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <email@example.com> writes:
> > Since it was completely redesigned, almost from scratch, this doesn’t
> > apply for 0.8. Its system daemon is able to manage connections without
> > anyone logged on, and with a number of features that makes ifupdown look
> > like a baby toy.
> So Network-Manager has finally gained basic features like the ability to
> set a lower than default MTU?
AFAICT n-m had support for setting a lower MTU since 2008.
And with basic network features do you mean things like
- custom routes per interface
- multiple ip adresses per interface
- WLAN configuration
- overriding default nameservers per connection
- overriding default search domain per connection
- netmasks in CIDR notation
and all of that
- in a central place with a consistent interface
- without reliance on external commands (such as the ip command or shell
scripts) for basic stuff
- without crude hacks (e.g. defining additional interfaces just to bring
up another ip)
> How about bridging? VLANs? Unnumbered interfaces? DHCPv6-PD?
> Disabling IPv6 SLAAC on a specific interface? Multiple uplinks?
> Multiple routing tables? Creating tap interfaces connected to virtual
> swiches? Different types of tunnels? Sharing an ethernet interface
> between PPPoE and IP?
I guess n-m fails in those scenarios. At least for bridging I know it.
Now the question is, weither this is relevant for *default* installs or
Now the above stated features are not features used by every Debian
user. They are specific for certain use-cases. They can still be
realised. Either with
- writing an appropriate NM plugin
- writing a shell script and dropping it in the network-manager dispatcher
directory (basically similar ifupdowns if*.d directories)
- installing and using ifupdown together with network-manager or alone-
Even if n-m would be the default on new installations.
Note, that I'm not advocating for or against n-m as the default in
Debian. I don't even have a strong opinion about this (as long as I'm
still able to install ifupdown, if my use-case is not handled by n-m).
But it would help, if people would actually focus on the problem
to be solved instead of the whole worlds problems.
What I'd personally like is a well-integrated comprehensive network
configuration solution with a sane design. Able to manage systemwide
and relocating connections. Simple and complex connections.
With a configuration file backend *and* a GUI. Maybe with a cli tool
I guess thats what most people want, even if their *need* is a
> The list of features *not* supported by Network Manager is so long that
Most ifupdown features are not native. Its basically a framework which
allows *other* tools to provide all the features you named.
> I've always believed that peoply chose NM for simplicity. And I can
> understand that. It's simple because it doesn't support anything
> "complex", including common VPN setups.
ifupdown does not support any VPN setup at all. how does that fit in