Re: network-manager as default? No!
Philip Hands wrote:
> On the other hand, nobody from the "Isn't N-M great" camp seems willing
> to explain why I'd want it in preference to ifupdown on a server,
> particularly a co-lo remotely admined server.
This was stated in the original proposal: ifupdown is not event-based and
does not integrate correctly with modern boot systems.
Sticking to this unmaintained piece of software with a design for systems
from the 80s only leads to an increasing amount of complexity to handle
network setups.
How do you start up network interfaces that depend on each other, because
e.g. they are stacked on each other? How do you start services that depend
on given network interfaces to be up? With ifupdown, you build hacks on
top of other hacks, and you wait for the next failure.
> For a machine with a static IP address, it seems pretty obvious that you
> want to set that address at boot time and then leave it alone regardless
> of what else might happen.
For a machine with an IP address assigned by DHCP, which is a very common
setup even on servers, you want to detect network disconnections and
re-launch dhclient at reconnection. Even for things as simple as that,
ifupdown fails to do the job.
--
Joss
Reply to: