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

[Bjørn Mork <bjorn@mork.no>]

Serge <sergemdev@gmail.com> writes:
> 2012/8/30 Wouter Verhelst 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.
>
> Not sure. Will it work for user-space configuration too? I.e. `ifdown`
> may have have to stop `dhclient` and `wpa_supplicanf`. Is it possible
> to detect such cases automatically?

If you start dhclient or wpa_supplicant on ifup, then you naturally need
to query and deconfigure those tools on ifdown too.  There is a perfect
symmetry here:

 "up" use rtnetlink => "down" queries/deconfigures rtnetlink
 "up" use wpa_supplicant => "down" queries/deconfigures wpa_supplicant
 "up" use dhclient => "down" queries/deconfigures dhclient
 "up" use pppd => "down" queries/deconfigures pppd

etc.  Layered combinations of the above is of course common and must be
supported.

But I fail to see the point of this discussion.  Post patches for NM
and/or ifupdown implementing the features you'd like to see.  No need
for all the theoretical mumbo-jumbo, implying that someone else should
do the job.


Bjørn