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

Re: can we (fully) fix/integrate NetworkManager (preferred) or release-goal its decommissioning

On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 09:56 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 30 août 2012 à 22:19 +0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit : 
> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:44:11AM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> > > How do you suppose it's possible to undo arbitrary network
> > > configuration done by arbitrary set of tools when there's no central
> > > place to hold such information (and can't possibly be)?
> > 
> > Actually, the kernel holds that information. Any tool can just query the
> > kernel for information, and decide what to do with what's returned.
> Yes it does, but does it hold it in a meaningful, structured way? In
> complex setups, for example, there might be no certain way to say which
> interface is related to which route.

I wish you would give an example.

> Or to tell which low-level
> interface another interface depends on (think tunnels managed by
> userland tools).

You're thinking about packet forwarding in userland?

> Actually if there was at least a *standard*, low-level (or in-kernel)
> tool to return structured information about the current network
> configuration, maybe high-level network tools (such as ifupdown and NM)
> could be redesigned in a completely different, much more compatible,
> way.

The kernel API is called rtnetlink (or NETLINK_ROUTE) and NM already
uses it.  Not all device relationships are properly represented through
it yet, but people are working on it.


Ben Hutchings
Theory and practice are closer in theory than in practice.
                                - John Levine, moderator of comp.compilers

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: