Debian Buster and NetworkManager

[Alessandro Baggi <alessandro.baggi@gmail.com>]

Hi list,

I've recently upgraded my stretch to buster (fresh install).

I installed KDE and I tried to configure the network using 
NetworkManager (nmcli).
On my workstation I have 2 bridges (br0 for lan vms and br1 for dmz on 
demand vms).
br0 have a static address to permit navigation on my workstation and br1 
does not have any address assigned.
Using interfaces old method all work very well but using NM things are 
bad. I configured my net devices like this:

# nmcli connection delete enp0s31f6
# nmcli connection delete enp7s0
# nmcli device disconnect enp0s31f6
# nmcli device disconnect enp7s0

# nmcli connection add type bridge con-name br0 ifname br0
# nmcli connection add type bridge-slave con-name enp0s31f6 ifname 
enp0s31f6 master br0
# nmcli connection modify br0 ipv4.address x.x.x.x/16 ipv4.method manual 
ipv4.gateway x.x.x.x ipv4.dns x.x.x.x
# nmcli connection modify br0 ipv6.method ignore bridge.stp no
# nmcli connection add type bridge con-name br1 ifname br1
# nmcli connection add type bridge-slave con-name enp7s0 ifname enp7s0 
master br1
# nmcli connection modify br1 ipv4.method disabled ipv6.method ignore 
bridge.stp no

# nmcli connection up enp0s31f6
# nmcli connection up enp7s0
# nmcli connection up br0
# nmcli connection up br1
# nmcli connection reload

With all these previous commands network is available. On a system 
reboot network is up.

On a notebook, desktop or workstation with simple ethernet/wifi 
connection this could be useful but on workstation with non classic 
configuration or on a server I could not see how NM complexity could 
give some benefit.
I found interfaces method more readable, simpler to write, simpler to 
manage and more "ready to work".

NM is a replace of ifconfig,brctl,route command?

Can someone explain in which case NM is better vs interfaces speaking of 
server and workstation with multiple bridge?

Thanks in advance.