[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: network-manager as default? No!

On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 07:22:47PM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> It also can't do VLANs (.1q), bridges, bonds and all possible  
> permutations of the above. I'd speculate that it also wouldn't be able  
> to do things like 1k (or more) interfaces. It also doesn't support hooks  
> to be able to do more advanced setups, such as multihoming, policy  
> routing, QoS, etc.

Is it necessary for the distribution's *default* network-management solution to
handle all of these?  If it could be easily substituted for another solution
that was better suited to tasks which a majority of users will not use, then
surely that is fine.

(although I'd like to get NM and bridging working more nicely personally, I
 consider this more of a feature bug than an RC one)

> And, above all, losing the network configuration, even for a second,  
> just because you restarted a daemon (or that daemon died) shouldn't be  
> acceptable for the primary network configuration of our distribution.

IMHO this is a reasonable requirement, yes.

Jon Dowland

Reply to: