[CentOS] NetworkManager: Remove one of two DHCP leases
I forgot to release the DHCP IPv4 lease on a PC before I deployed it at the customer site. So now the box has two leases for a couple days, when the old lease expires. What's the proper way to force the unwanted additional lease to expire immediately? It's mucking up my resolv.conf with the old DNS search order and servers added to the customer's. I checked the /var/lib/NetworkManager/dhclient6-*.lease file and see my own IPv6 configuration and nothing from the customer, which explains why I can't connect to resolved IPv6 addresses. How can I flush that? (There are two identical lease6 records but both are to my home LAN. Why are there two copies?) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] NetworkManager, Centos 8, Ipv6 Prefix Delegation
Hello, i try to use (Centos8) NetworkManager builtin Prefix-Delegation for ipv6. Unfortunately i found no howto is helping me. i do: /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf: [main] dhcp=dhclient Modify Cons: nmcli con modify LOKAL1 ipv6.method shared nmcli con modify LOKAL2 ipv6.method shared nmcli con modify WAN_TK ipv6.method dhcp Before these modifications i got over pppoe the public ipv6. Now only ipv4. These steps are right/necassary. I see in logs these message: NetworkManager[5204]: [1592929660.5084] device (enp6s0.7.wan): failure to start DHCPv6: missing MAC address What is todo? Thanks a lot. Joe ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager on servers
Le 13/02/2020 à 17:50, Stephen John Smoogen a écrit : In the end, the problem is that NetworkManager, FirewallD, and other 'automatic' helpers are 'part' of the OS.. and while it was easy to tear them out in earlier versions.. as time goes on it is not. For a car analogy, it was much easier to convert any 1970 car from automatic back to manual as many parts were left over. Now in this era, you can do so if you pick the right car but for a lot of them it is not going to be easy in any form. I see the same trends in computer OS's with certain tools which were easy to pull out now requiring you to build the whole os from scratch as the part is assumed to be in so many other areas. I'm currently in the process of making peace with NetworkManager, FirewallD, etc. and adopting them on my servers. Here's a start : * https://www.microlinux.fr/networkmanager-centos-rhel-1/ Cheers, Niki -- Microlinux - Solutions informatiques durables 7, place de l'église - 30730 Montpezat Site : https://www.microlinux.fr Mail : i...@microlinux.fr Tél. : 04 66 63 10 32 Mob. : 06 51 80 12 12 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager on servers
hi, On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 8:55 AM Nicolas Kovacs wrote: > Hi, > > > On servers though, one of the first post-installation steps I performed > was to > get rid of Network-Manager and all its components. The servers I'm working > on > are relatively small-scale and have from one to four network interfaces. > Each > interface has a corresponding configuration in > /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts, > and that's it. From there, I rarely - if ever - touch it. In all my > setups, > NetworkManager is merely a useless layer of abstraction, and I like > sticking to > the KISS principle and shave off useless layers. > Interesting philosophical discussion but using centos means you need to go with whatever red hat decides, so if they say so, then you have few options. I must admit I have long refused to use networkmanager, but since centos 7 it has been rock solid. And as we use config tools (salt right now, but it is the same with the rest of the competition) I do not really care what they use to abstract the network configuration as long as it works. And work it does, so everybody is happy. Another huge selling point is that it is what cockpit uses to configure the network interfaces, and cockpit is really nice for less advanced users. So our more junior people can get their feet wet using cockpit, and we can automate everything using configuration management, and both tools use the same api so nobody gets left behind. Tab completion makes it easy to use, too ;-) In the end, my take is: whoever comes after me needs to understand whatever we were doing, so let's just sitck with what the vendor provides (regarding the operating system) and use best of breed tooling to manage it (which may or may not be what the OS vendor recommends, but can fit better the business's requirements). -- regards from the sunny Netherlands, natxo ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager on servers
On 2020-02-13 10:50, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 11:40, Nicolas Kovacs wrote: Le 11/02/2020 à 14:11, Jonathan Billings a écrit : I've mentioned on this list countless times about how NetworkManager is actually pretty good for a general server. Automatic link detection and activation/deactivation, a dispatch service on link activation/deactivation, support for bringing up secondary interfaces after a primary goes up, a dbus interface for automation, etc. I just prepared myself to catch up and learn more about NetworkManager. So I opened my big fat "Unix and Linux System Administration Handbook 5th edition", with a text file open on the computer to take extensive notes... ... only to find out that there is only half a page on NetworkManager in this book. Allow me to quote it: "NetworkManager is primarily of use on laptops, since their network enviromment may change frequently. For servers and desktop systems, NetworkManager isn't necessary and may in fact complicate administration. In these environments, it should be ignored or configured out." The book was published in 2017 which means it was written in late 2016. As much as I love that series of books (I have read them from 1st edition), I do not expect that its comments on parts of Linux in the 3rd edition would be useful now. In the end, the problem is that NetworkManager, FirewallD, and other 'automatic' helpers are 'part' of the OS.. and while it was easy to tear them out in earlier versions.. as time goes on it is not. I like the way you called the fact that these "automatic" things are part of OS: the PROBLEM (in case of servers). Every time I see these discussions on Linux lists, I tell myself how happy I am after fleeing servers to different OS (huh, I'll break my plea to not mention it: FreeBSD). Valeri For a car analogy, it was much easier to convert any 1970 car from automatic back to manual as many parts were left over. Now in this era, you can do so if you pick the right car but for a lot of them it is not going to be easy in any form. I see the same trends in computer OS's with certain tools which were easy to pull out now requiring you to build the whole os from scratch as the part is assumed to be in so many other areas. -- Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager on servers
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 05:53:41PM +0100, Nicolas Kovacs wrote: > I just came to the same conclusion. So it looks like I'll have to > catch up and do some RTFM on NetworkManager, FirewallD (which I've > replaced by a handcrafted iptables script) and Chrony (replaced by > ntpd). Whatever your views on the first two, I strongly discourage the latter unless you have very specific functionality beyond Chrony's capability. The original ntpd has a very large attack surface. Plus Chrony has some nice additional features. Read more about Chrony here: https://opensource.com/article/18/12/manage-ntp-chrony -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager on servers
Le 13/02/2020 à 17:50, Stephen John Smoogen a écrit : In the end, the problem is that NetworkManager, FirewallD, and other 'automatic' helpers are 'part' of the OS.. and while it was easy to tear them out in earlier versions.. as time goes on it is not. For a car analogy, it was much easier to convert any 1970 car from automatic back to manual as many parts were left over. Now in this era, you can do so if you pick the right car but for a lot of them it is not going to be easy in any form. I see the same trends in computer OS's with certain tools which were easy to pull out now requiring you to build the whole os from scratch as the part is assumed to be in so many other areas. I just came to the same conclusion. So it looks like I'll have to catch up and do some RTFM on NetworkManager, FirewallD (which I've replaced by a handcrafted iptables script) and Chrony (replaced by ntpd). Cheers, Niki -- Microlinux - Solutions informatiques durables 7, place de l'église - 30730 Montpezat Site : https://www.microlinux.fr Mail : i...@microlinux.fr Tél. : 04 66 63 10 32 Mob. : 06 51 80 12 12 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager on servers
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 11:40, Nicolas Kovacs wrote: > Le 11/02/2020 à 14:11, Jonathan Billings a écrit : > > I've mentioned on this list countless times about how NetworkManager > > is actually pretty good for a general server. Automatic link > > detection and activation/deactivation, a dispatch service on link > > activation/deactivation, support for bringing up secondary interfaces > > after a primary goes up, a dbus interface for automation, etc. > > I just prepared myself to catch up and learn more about NetworkManager. So > I > opened my big fat "Unix and Linux System Administration Handbook 5th > edition", > with a text file open on the computer to take extensive notes... > > ... only to find out that there is only half a page on NetworkManager in > this > book. Allow me to quote it: > > "NetworkManager is primarily of use on laptops, since their network > enviromment > may change frequently. For servers and desktop systems, NetworkManager > isn't > necessary and may in fact complicate administration. In these > environments, it > should be ignored or configured out." > > The book was published in 2017 which means it was written in late 2016. As much as I love that series of books (I have read them from 1st edition), I do not expect that its comments on parts of Linux in the 3rd edition would be useful now. In the end, the problem is that NetworkManager, FirewallD, and other 'automatic' helpers are 'part' of the OS.. and while it was easy to tear them out in earlier versions.. as time goes on it is not. For a car analogy, it was much easier to convert any 1970 car from automatic back to manual as many parts were left over. Now in this era, you can do so if you pick the right car but for a lot of them it is not going to be easy in any form. I see the same trends in computer OS's with certain tools which were easy to pull out now requiring you to build the whole os from scratch as the part is assumed to be in so many other areas. -- Stephen J Smoogen. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager on servers
Le 11/02/2020 à 14:11, Jonathan Billings a écrit : I've mentioned on this list countless times about how NetworkManager is actually pretty good for a general server. Automatic link detection and activation/deactivation, a dispatch service on link activation/deactivation, support for bringing up secondary interfaces after a primary goes up, a dbus interface for automation, etc. I just prepared myself to catch up and learn more about NetworkManager. So I opened my big fat "Unix and Linux System Administration Handbook 5th edition", with a text file open on the computer to take extensive notes... ... only to find out that there is only half a page on NetworkManager in this book. Allow me to quote it: "NetworkManager is primarily of use on laptops, since their network enviromment may change frequently. For servers and desktop systems, NetworkManager isn't necessary and may in fact complicate administration. In these environments, it should be ignored or configured out." H. -- Microlinux - Solutions informatiques durables 7, place de l'église - 30730 Montpezat Site : https://www.microlinux.fr Mail : i...@microlinux.fr Tél. : 04 66 63 10 32 Mob. : 06 51 80 12 12 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager on servers
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 06:29:29PM +0100, Nicolas Kovacs wrote: > As much as I love CentOS (been using it since 4.x), some days I just miss > the bone-headed approach of Slackware and FreeBSD. Just edit > /etc/rc.d/rc.inet1.conf or /etc/rc.conf and you're done. Nothing is stopping you from creating and editing a service in /etc/rc.d/init.d/ and enabling it. systemd supports launching SysV service files. If you edited init files that were owned by packages, though, then you probably had to deal with package replacing them and losing your changes. -- Jonathan Billings ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager on servers
Le 11/02/2020 à 16:27, Stephen John Smoogen a écrit : 1. Red Hat is a company of 14,000 people many of which have diverging views on how things should be run and why. This means that you may see 4-5 different tools to fix a problem all of which solve the part that they were originally developed for but not for everyone (mainly because the tool that is solving it for everyone is still not out of design yet.) 2. systemd is maintained by multiple companies with divergent interests in how and where to solve things. It is also not a monolithic tool but a 'hurd' of services which all do some vital plumbing. Some of that plumbing works for some things but not all things any more than you put the same pipe under your kitchen sink as your bathroom as the industrial cleaner.. [well you can but it will blow up somewhere.] This leads to a lot of 'but I thought Red Hat was doing X' which is true but 'Red Hat is also doing Y' or Z and the same for systemd and related groups. Any time you have more than 4 of anything you will start getting factorial number of solutions. (4 sysadmins, 4 developers, 4 managers etc.. at 5 you end up with 120 different solutions for some reason.) As much as I love CentOS (been using it since 4.x), some days I just miss the bone-headed approach of Slackware and FreeBSD. Just edit /etc/rc.d/rc.inet1.conf or /etc/rc.conf and you're done. :o) -- Microlinux - Solutions informatiques durables 7, place de l'église - 30730 Montpezat Site : https://www.microlinux.fr Mail : i...@microlinux.fr Tél. : 04 66 63 10 32 Mob. : 06 51 80 12 12 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager on servers
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 08:17, Mauricio Tavares wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 8:12 AM Jonathan Billings > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 06:11:04AM +0100, Simon Matter via CentOS wrote: > > > Unfortunately, instead of fixing/refactoring the whole bash networking > > > script mess, another new project was started instead, called > > > systemd-networkd :-) > > > > Actually, I'm sad that RHEL/CentOS 8 doesn't support > > systemd-networkd. It's really nice, especially for really pared down > > systems that don't need a lot of extra services like NetworkManager. > > But I understand that Red Hat needs to focus its support efforts. > > > I thought that systemd was under redhat, so I am confused why > they would not be pushing it instead of networkmanager. Am I missing > something? > So there are two items of complexity which people have a hard time understanding (both inside and outside of Red Hat). 1. Red Hat is a company of 14,000 people many of which have diverging views on how things should be run and why. This means that you may see 4-5 different tools to fix a problem all of which solve the part that they were originally developed for but not for everyone (mainly because the tool that is solving it for everyone is still not out of design yet.) 2. systemd is maintained by multiple companies with divergent interests in how and where to solve things. It is also not a monolithic tool but a 'hurd' of services which all do some vital plumbing. Some of that plumbing works for some things but not all things any more than you put the same pipe under your kitchen sink as your bathroom as the industrial cleaner.. [well you can but it will blow up somewhere.] This leads to a lot of 'but I thought Red Hat was doing X' which is true but 'Red Hat is also doing Y' or Z and the same for systemd and related groups. Any time you have more than 4 of anything you will start getting factorial number of solutions. (4 sysadmins, 4 developers, 4 managers etc.. at 5 you end up with 120 different solutions for some reason.) > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -- Stephen J Smoogen. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager on servers
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 08:17:18AM -0500, Mauricio Tavares wrote: > I thought that systemd was under redhat, so I am confused why > they would not be pushing it instead of networkmanager. Am I missing > something? systemd has several Red Hat employees working on systemd, I believe, but it's not a solely Red Hat product. And according to their documentation and tickets opened about systemd-networkd, they're focusing on a single network infrastructure, NetworkManager. It was available as part of the optional channel in RHEL7 but I guess it caused too much confusion in the market or something. It's still kinda new and I guess having that much churn in your network infrastructure is too much for a enterprise-level OS (given that they'd have to backport fixes rather than bump the systemd version). -- Jonathan Billings ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager on servers
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 8:12 AM Jonathan Billings wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 06:11:04AM +0100, Simon Matter via CentOS wrote: > > Unfortunately, instead of fixing/refactoring the whole bash networking > > script mess, another new project was started instead, called > > systemd-networkd :-) > > Actually, I'm sad that RHEL/CentOS 8 doesn't support > systemd-networkd. It's really nice, especially for really pared down > systems that don't need a lot of extra services like NetworkManager. > But I understand that Red Hat needs to focus its support efforts. > I thought that systemd was under redhat, so I am confused why they would not be pushing it instead of networkmanager. Am I missing something? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager on servers
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 06:11:04AM +0100, Simon Matter via CentOS wrote: > Thanks for confirming that NetworkManager is not the solution for > everyone. To me it seems that NetworkManager was developed by laptop users > for laptop users and that's why it is what it is today. Useful for > laptops/desktops and simple server setups. I've mentioned on this list countless times about how NetworkManager is actually pretty good for a general server. Automatic link detection and activation/deactivation, a dispatch service on link activation/deactivation, support for bringing up secondary interfaces after a primary goes up, a dbus interface for automation, etc. > Unfortunately, instead of fixing/refactoring the whole bash networking > script mess, another new project was started instead, called > systemd-networkd :-) Actually, I'm sad that RHEL/CentOS 8 doesn't support systemd-networkd. It's really nice, especially for really pared down systems that don't need a lot of extra services like NetworkManager. But I understand that Red Hat needs to focus its support efforts. -- Jonathan Billings ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager on servers
> On 09/02/2020 23:55, Nicolas Kovacs wrote: > > Hi Nicolas, > > [snip] > >> Maybe there's a reason to make NetworkManager more or less mandatory >> from now on, but I don't see it. So I thought I'd rather ask on this >> list. > > Like you, I read about NetworkManager becoming the default tool for > CentOS 8. So I sat down with a colleague to figure out how we could use > NetworkManager, and convert our existing network configs (on CentOS 6 > and 7) to work with NetworkManager. > > I'm sad to report that we ran into at least 3 issues (listed below). We > found solutions to the first two, but the last one was a show-stopper, > and we came to the conclusion that for servers, NetworkManager is still > overkill, and for us, actually unusable. So even on CentOS 8, we will > keep using the legacy scripts. > > 1. When NetworkManager activates interfaces, it does not wait for IPv6 > DAD to complete. This makes systemd reach the "network-online" target > before IPv6 is fully initialised, and some daemons fail to start. We > eventually found a work-around, but not before I'd lost some of my hair. > > 2. NetworkManager doesn't know how to activate dummy interfaces from > ifcfg-dummy* files. You have to create dummy interfaces directly in > NetworkManager. This is not a problem on CentOS 8, but on CentOS 7, > there is a subtle issue with loading the dummy module that makes things > fail at boot. We again found the solution, but it's annoying that none > of it was documented. > > 3. Some of our servers run full routing daemons (BIRD), and have > multiple route tables. On these, when we start NetworkManager, it > attempts to read the entire route tables into memory using the netlink > API. This makes it log lots of errors. Then, NetworkManager's RAM usage > goes up and up, going to over 3 GB!! Finally, it barfs and dies. And > then systemd starts it again, and it goes and does the same. > > We have NOT been able to find any solution to this stupidity of > NetworkManager. And so we have made the choice to abandon it, and remain > with legacy network scripts. Thanks for confirming that NetworkManager is not the solution for everyone. To me it seems that NetworkManager was developed by laptop users for laptop users and that's why it is what it is today. Useful for laptops/desktops and simple server setups. Unfortunately, instead of fixing/refactoring the whole bash networking script mess, another new project was started instead, called systemd-networkd :-) Regards, Simon ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager on servers
On 09/02/2020 23:55, Nicolas Kovacs wrote: Hi Nicolas, [snip] > Maybe there's a reason to make NetworkManager more or less mandatory > from now on, but I don't see it. So I thought I'd rather ask on this list. Like you, I read about NetworkManager becoming the default tool for CentOS 8. So I sat down with a colleague to figure out how we could use NetworkManager, and convert our existing network configs (on CentOS 6 and 7) to work with NetworkManager. I'm sad to report that we ran into at least 3 issues (listed below). We found solutions to the first two, but the last one was a show-stopper, and we came to the conclusion that for servers, NetworkManager is still overkill, and for us, actually unusable. So even on CentOS 8, we will keep using the legacy scripts. 1. When NetworkManager activates interfaces, it does not wait for IPv6 DAD to complete. This makes systemd reach the "network-online" target before IPv6 is fully initialised, and some daemons fail to start. We eventually found a work-around, but not before I'd lost some of my hair. 2. NetworkManager doesn't know how to activate dummy interfaces from ifcfg-dummy* files. You have to create dummy interfaces directly in NetworkManager. This is not a problem on CentOS 8, but on CentOS 7, there is a subtle issue with loading the dummy module that makes things fail at boot. We again found the solution, but it's annoying that none of it was documented. 3. Some of our servers run full routing daemons (BIRD), and have multiple route tables. On these, when we start NetworkManager, it attempts to read the entire route tables into memory using the netlink API. This makes it log lots of errors. Then, NetworkManager's RAM usage goes up and up, going to over 3 GB!! Finally, it barfs and dies. And then systemd starts it again, and it goes and does the same. We have NOT been able to find any solution to this stupidity of NetworkManager. And so we have made the choice to abandon it, and remain with legacy network scripts. Regards, Anand ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager on servers
Once upon a time, Stephen John Smoogen said: > The reason is that having 1 way to configure networks makes it so the > developer and tech support only have to diagnose issues from 1 set of tools > versus two different ones (and occasionally 2 competing ones if both are > trying to do their job at the same time). Not only that - the hodge-podge bash network scripts are kind of a mess. It is impressive that they do what they do so reliably after so long, but every new feature appears to have been hacked in by a different developer, leaving parts of them almost indecipherable. That's not intended as a criticism of the scripts or the people who wrote that code - it's just that IMHO they managed to go beyond what is reasonable in bash scripting, which makes for a difficult to read (and I'm sure fix/extend) set of scripts. And even on servers now, there are often dynamic network changes that work much better with NetworkManager than the old-style static scripts. Containers, VMs, and VPNs all come and go, and work better with a single system configuring their networks (rather than each layer implementing their own setup). -- Chris Adams ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager on servers
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 02:55, Nicolas Kovacs wrote: > Hi, > > I'm currently reading the upstream "Considerations in adopting RHEL 8" > document. The chapter about networking states that traditional networking > scripts (shipped with the network-scripts package) are considered obsolete. > > I bluntly admit I don't see the point in this. As far as I'm concerned, > I've > been a happy user of NetworkManager since the early days (when folks used > to > call it NotworkManager :oD). It's one of those nifty pieces of software > that > brought the Linux desktop to the masses - or at least a bit nearer to them > - > since it allows managing wireless and wired interfaces transparently and > easily > on a laptop or any computer with a wireless card. > > On servers though, one of the first post-installation steps I performed > was to > get rid of Network-Manager and all its components. The servers I'm working > on > are relatively small-scale and have from one to four network interfaces. > Each > interface has a corresponding configuration in > /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts, > and that's it. From there, I rarely - if ever - touch it. In all my > setups, > NetworkManager is merely a useless layer of abstraction, and I like > sticking to > the KISS principle and shave off useless layers. > > Maybe there's a reason to make NetworkManager more or less mandatory from > now > on, but I don't see it. So I thought I'd rather ask on this list. > > The reason is that having 1 way to configure networks makes it so the developer and tech support only have to diagnose issues from 1 set of tools versus two different ones (and occasionally 2 competing ones if both are trying to do their job at the same time). Basically network-scripts has been on the backburner for 10+ years and has to be dusted off every now and then to add a new networking corner case or some other item. For the developer it usually means context swapping back from python (or whatever language they prefer) to bash and then figure out what the problem is.. cause a couple of new ones they then have to fix and then get it right. Or they could do that work in 1 language they know and get it done. Does it makes sense to us as sysadmins who are happy with a working set of scripts and configs we have to know possibly rewrite? No it doesn't.. but unless one of us takes over the network-scripts and puts in the work to make it work in all the different layers (or pay someone to do so).. we get what the soup kitchen serves :). -- Stephen J Smoogen. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] NetworkManager on servers
Hi, I'm currently reading the upstream "Considerations in adopting RHEL 8" document. The chapter about networking states that traditional networking scripts (shipped with the network-scripts package) are considered obsolete. I bluntly admit I don't see the point in this. As far as I'm concerned, I've been a happy user of NetworkManager since the early days (when folks used to call it NotworkManager :oD). It's one of those nifty pieces of software that brought the Linux desktop to the masses - or at least a bit nearer to them - since it allows managing wireless and wired interfaces transparently and easily on a laptop or any computer with a wireless card. On servers though, one of the first post-installation steps I performed was to get rid of Network-Manager and all its components. The servers I'm working on are relatively small-scale and have from one to four network interfaces. Each interface has a corresponding configuration in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts, and that's it. From there, I rarely - if ever - touch it. In all my setups, NetworkManager is merely a useless layer of abstraction, and I like sticking to the KISS principle and shave off useless layers. Maybe there's a reason to make NetworkManager more or less mandatory from now on, but I don't see it. So I thought I'd rather ask on this list. Cheers from the foggy South of France, Niki -- Microlinux - Solutions informatiques durables 7, place de l'église - 30730 Montpezat Site : https://www.microlinux.fr Mail : i...@microlinux.fr Tél. : 04 66 63 10 32 Mob. : 06 51 80 12 12 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager and /etc/resolv.conf
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Simon Matter wrote: Alice was talking about CentOS 7.5, which doesn't have systemd-resolved nor does it have systemd-networkd. I didn't look at EL8 betas yet but we can probably expect systemd-networkd to be included there. If that's the case, we'll probably have legacy script based configs, NetworkManager and systemd-networkd/systemd-resolved. No, you get to keep NetworkManager. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650342 Michal Sekletar: "In RHEL-7 we shipped it in Optional channel, hence it was not officially supported. We decided to remove it for a couple for reasons, * networkd is not mature enough and is somewhat poorly maintained upstream * networkd is still missing management interfaces (DBUS interface) * RHEL's default network configuration tool is NetworkManager and we didn't want to send mixed signals to users * RHEL-8 was supposed to be as small as possible in terms of packages * we didn't see too much networkd usage (even experimental) in RHEL-7" ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager and /etc/resolv.conf
> > On 11/19/18 6:49 AM, Simon Matter wrote: >>> On 11/17/18 8:31 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: On 11/17/2018 07:01 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: > On 11/17/2018 06:43 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: >> CentOS 7.5 image running on linode. >> >> unbound running on localhost. >> >> Have to use a cron job once a minute to keep /etc/resolv.conf using >> the localhost for name resolution - whenever NetworkManager gets >> restarted (usually only a system boot) it gets over-written. >> >> It seems every distro has a different way of preventing >> NetworkManager from replacing that file. >> >> I found instructions for Fedora that said create >> /etc/NetworkManager/conf.d/no-dns.conf containing >> >> [main] >> dns=none >> >> That doesn't seem to have any effect. >> >> Poking around, I find a file on boot seems to be created called >> >> /var/run/NetworkManager/resolv.conf >> >> It has most of the contents of what ends up in /etc/resolv.conf - >> except w/o the last line, which just reads rotate in generated >> /etc/resolv.conf. >> >> It says it's generated by NetworkManager (both /etc/resolv.conf and >> the one in /var/run/NetworkManager) but neither are specific enough >> to indicate what is causing them to be created so I can turn it off. >> >> Anyone know how to tell NetworkManager to just not create that file? >> >> Using a cron job to overwrite it once a minute works but there must >> be a proper way. >> >> I really wish KISS was a design goal when designing system >> configuration. >> ___ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS@centos.org >> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > Just found this - > > # cat dhclient-exit-hooks > echo 'options rotate' >> /etc/resolv.conf > > That's where the last line in /etc/resolv.conf is coming from. Okay replacing the contents of dhclient-exit-hooks with echo -e 'nameserver 127.0.0.1\nnameserver ::1' > /etc/resolv.conf seems to do what I need. I hope RHEL/CentOS 8 do networking better, as in, not have spaghetti scripts called here and there making something that should be a config option hard to do. With DNS the only way to trust results is if the zone is signed and local resolver validates. You can't ever trust external nameservers defined by dhcp to validate. So there's very valid reasons to want to use local unbound. ___ >>> >>> >>> I don't know about CentOS 7 because I'm running CentOS 6, but on other >>> systemd distributions where I've run into similar issues I was either >>> able to add a hardcoded DNS server to network manager or resolve the >>> problem through systemd-resolved. >>> >>> In one case I resolved the issue best by disabling systemd-resolved, >>> but >>> if you check the man page for systemd-resolved as wells as the man page >>> for resolved.conf (/etc/systemd/resolved.conf on other distributions) >>> my sense is you will find a cleaner solution. It would seem to me that >>> if you are running bind or powerdns on your local host, then it would >>> make sense to me to disable systemd-resolved, since you don't need so >>> many layers of caching dns resolvers. >> >> Alice was talking about CentOS 7.5, which doesn't have systemd-resolved >> nor does it have systemd-networkd. I didn't look at EL8 betas yet but we >> can probably expect systemd-networkd to be included there. If that's the >> case, we'll probably have legacy script based configs, NetworkManager >> and >> systemd-networkd/systemd-resolved. >> >> In other words, things may not get easier in the future but even more >> confusing. At least that's already the case if you run different >> distributions. >> >> Regards, >> Simon >> >> ___ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS@centos.org >> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> > > Hi > in august 1017 i had put away the following remark about this item: > > > #edit > gvim /var/run/NetworkManager/resolv.conf > # to your needs > # make /etc/resolv.conf a link to the above file > rm /etc/resolv.conf > ln -s /lib/systemd/resolv.conf /etc/resolv.conf > > # dns=none does not work in either /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf > # nor in /etc/NetworkManager/conf.d/dns.conf > > --- > > OR, much simpler: > > in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-ethX > > PEERDNS=no > IPV6_PEERDNS=no > With the init scripts I have in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-ethX RESOLV_MODS="no" Regards, Simon ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager and /etc/resolv.conf
On 11/19/18 6:49 AM, Simon Matter wrote: On 11/17/18 8:31 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: On 11/17/2018 07:01 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: On 11/17/2018 06:43 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: CentOS 7.5 image running on linode. unbound running on localhost. Have to use a cron job once a minute to keep /etc/resolv.conf using the localhost for name resolution - whenever NetworkManager gets restarted (usually only a system boot) it gets over-written. It seems every distro has a different way of preventing NetworkManager from replacing that file. I found instructions for Fedora that said create /etc/NetworkManager/conf.d/no-dns.conf containing [main] dns=none That doesn't seem to have any effect. Poking around, I find a file on boot seems to be created called /var/run/NetworkManager/resolv.conf It has most of the contents of what ends up in /etc/resolv.conf - except w/o the last line, which just reads rotate in generated /etc/resolv.conf. It says it's generated by NetworkManager (both /etc/resolv.conf and the one in /var/run/NetworkManager) but neither are specific enough to indicate what is causing them to be created so I can turn it off. Anyone know how to tell NetworkManager to just not create that file? Using a cron job to overwrite it once a minute works but there must be a proper way. I really wish KISS was a design goal when designing system configuration. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Just found this - # cat dhclient-exit-hooks echo 'options rotate' >> /etc/resolv.conf That's where the last line in /etc/resolv.conf is coming from. Okay replacing the contents of dhclient-exit-hooks with echo -e 'nameserver 127.0.0.1\nnameserver ::1' > /etc/resolv.conf seems to do what I need. I hope RHEL/CentOS 8 do networking better, as in, not have spaghetti scripts called here and there making something that should be a config option hard to do. With DNS the only way to trust results is if the zone is signed and local resolver validates. You can't ever trust external nameservers defined by dhcp to validate. So there's very valid reasons to want to use local unbound. ___ I don't know about CentOS 7 because I'm running CentOS 6, but on other systemd distributions where I've run into similar issues I was either able to add a hardcoded DNS server to network manager or resolve the problem through systemd-resolved. In one case I resolved the issue best by disabling systemd-resolved, but if you check the man page for systemd-resolved as wells as the man page for resolved.conf (/etc/systemd/resolved.conf on other distributions) my sense is you will find a cleaner solution. It would seem to me that if you are running bind or powerdns on your local host, then it would make sense to me to disable systemd-resolved, since you don't need so many layers of caching dns resolvers. Alice was talking about CentOS 7.5, which doesn't have systemd-resolved nor does it have systemd-networkd. I didn't look at EL8 betas yet but we can probably expect systemd-networkd to be included there. If that's the case, we'll probably have legacy script based configs, NetworkManager and systemd-networkd/systemd-resolved. In other words, things may not get easier in the future but even more confusing. At least that's already the case if you run different distributions. Regards, Simon ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Hi in august 1017 i had put away the following remark about this item: #edit gvim /var/run/NetworkManager/resolv.conf # to your needs # make /etc/resolv.conf a link to the above file rm /etc/resolv.conf ln -s /lib/systemd/resolv.conf /etc/resolv.conf # dns=none does not work in either /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf # nor in /etc/NetworkManager/conf.d/dns.conf --- OR, much simpler: in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-ethX PEERDNS=no IPV6_PEERDNS=no suomi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager and /etc/resolv.conf
> On 11/17/18 8:31 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: >> On 11/17/2018 07:01 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: >>> On 11/17/2018 06:43 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: CentOS 7.5 image running on linode. unbound running on localhost. Have to use a cron job once a minute to keep /etc/resolv.conf using the localhost for name resolution - whenever NetworkManager gets restarted (usually only a system boot) it gets over-written. It seems every distro has a different way of preventing NetworkManager from replacing that file. I found instructions for Fedora that said create /etc/NetworkManager/conf.d/no-dns.conf containing [main] dns=none That doesn't seem to have any effect. Poking around, I find a file on boot seems to be created called /var/run/NetworkManager/resolv.conf It has most of the contents of what ends up in /etc/resolv.conf - except w/o the last line, which just reads rotate in generated /etc/resolv.conf. It says it's generated by NetworkManager (both /etc/resolv.conf and the one in /var/run/NetworkManager) but neither are specific enough to indicate what is causing them to be created so I can turn it off. Anyone know how to tell NetworkManager to just not create that file? Using a cron job to overwrite it once a minute works but there must be a proper way. I really wish KISS was a design goal when designing system configuration. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >>> >>> Just found this - >>> >>> # cat dhclient-exit-hooks >>> echo 'options rotate' >> /etc/resolv.conf >>> >>> That's where the last line in /etc/resolv.conf is coming from. >> >> Okay replacing the contents of dhclient-exit-hooks with >> >> echo -e 'nameserver 127.0.0.1\nnameserver ::1' > /etc/resolv.conf >> >> seems to do what I need. >> >> I hope RHEL/CentOS 8 do networking better, as in, not have spaghetti >> scripts called here and there making something that should be a config >> option hard to do. >> >> With DNS the only way to trust results is if the zone is signed and >> local resolver validates. You can't ever trust external nameservers >> defined by dhcp to validate. So there's very valid reasons to want to >> use local unbound. >> ___ > > > I don't know about CentOS 7 because I'm running CentOS 6, but on other > systemd distributions where I've run into similar issues I was either > able to add a hardcoded DNS server to network manager or resolve the > problem through systemd-resolved. > > In one case I resolved the issue best by disabling systemd-resolved, but > if you check the man page for systemd-resolved as wells as the man page > for resolved.conf (/etc/systemd/resolved.conf on other distributions) > my sense is you will find a cleaner solution. It would seem to me that > if you are running bind or powerdns on your local host, then it would > make sense to me to disable systemd-resolved, since you don't need so > many layers of caching dns resolvers. Alice was talking about CentOS 7.5, which doesn't have systemd-resolved nor does it have systemd-networkd. I didn't look at EL8 betas yet but we can probably expect systemd-networkd to be included there. If that's the case, we'll probably have legacy script based configs, NetworkManager and systemd-networkd/systemd-resolved. In other words, things may not get easier in the future but even more confusing. At least that's already the case if you run different distributions. Regards, Simon ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager and /etc/resolv.conf
On 11/17/18 8:31 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: > On 11/17/2018 07:01 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: >> On 11/17/2018 06:43 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: >>> CentOS 7.5 image running on linode. >>> >>> unbound running on localhost. >>> >>> Have to use a cron job once a minute to keep /etc/resolv.conf using >>> the localhost for name resolution - whenever NetworkManager gets >>> restarted (usually only a system boot) it gets over-written. >>> >>> It seems every distro has a different way of preventing >>> NetworkManager from replacing that file. >>> >>> I found instructions for Fedora that said create >>> /etc/NetworkManager/conf.d/no-dns.conf containing >>> >>> [main] >>> dns=none >>> >>> That doesn't seem to have any effect. >>> >>> Poking around, I find a file on boot seems to be created called >>> >>> /var/run/NetworkManager/resolv.conf >>> >>> It has most of the contents of what ends up in /etc/resolv.conf - >>> except w/o the last line, which just reads rotate in generated >>> /etc/resolv.conf. >>> >>> It says it's generated by NetworkManager (both /etc/resolv.conf and >>> the one in /var/run/NetworkManager) but neither are specific enough >>> to indicate what is causing them to be created so I can turn it off. >>> >>> Anyone know how to tell NetworkManager to just not create that file? >>> >>> Using a cron job to overwrite it once a minute works but there must >>> be a proper way. >>> >>> I really wish KISS was a design goal when designing system >>> configuration. >>> ___ >>> CentOS mailing list >>> CentOS@centos.org >>> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> >> Just found this - >> >> # cat dhclient-exit-hooks >> echo 'options rotate' >> /etc/resolv.conf >> >> That's where the last line in /etc/resolv.conf is coming from. > > Okay replacing the contents of dhclient-exit-hooks with > > echo -e 'nameserver 127.0.0.1\nnameserver ::1' > /etc/resolv.conf > > seems to do what I need. > > I hope RHEL/CentOS 8 do networking better, as in, not have spaghetti > scripts called here and there making something that should be a config > option hard to do. > > With DNS the only way to trust results is if the zone is signed and > local resolver validates. You can't ever trust external nameservers > defined by dhcp to validate. So there's very valid reasons to want to > use local unbound. > ___ I don't know about CentOS 7 because I'm running CentOS 6, but on other systemd distributions where I've run into similar issues I was either able to add a hardcoded DNS server to network manager or resolve the problem through systemd-resolved. In one case I resolved the issue best by disabling systemd-resolved, but if you check the man page for systemd-resolved as wells as the man page for resolved.conf (/etc/systemd/resolved.conf on other distributions) my sense is you will find a cleaner solution. It would seem to me that if you are running bind or powerdns on your local host, then it would make sense to me to disable systemd-resolved, since you don't need so many layers of caching dns resolvers. Nataraj ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager and /etc/resolv.conf
On 11/17/2018 07:01 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: On 11/17/2018 06:43 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: CentOS 7.5 image running on linode. unbound running on localhost. Have to use a cron job once a minute to keep /etc/resolv.conf using the localhost for name resolution - whenever NetworkManager gets restarted (usually only a system boot) it gets over-written. It seems every distro has a different way of preventing NetworkManager from replacing that file. I found instructions for Fedora that said create /etc/NetworkManager/conf.d/no-dns.conf containing [main] dns=none That doesn't seem to have any effect. Poking around, I find a file on boot seems to be created called /var/run/NetworkManager/resolv.conf It has most of the contents of what ends up in /etc/resolv.conf - except w/o the last line, which just reads rotate in generated /etc/resolv.conf. It says it's generated by NetworkManager (both /etc/resolv.conf and the one in /var/run/NetworkManager) but neither are specific enough to indicate what is causing them to be created so I can turn it off. Anyone know how to tell NetworkManager to just not create that file? Using a cron job to overwrite it once a minute works but there must be a proper way. I really wish KISS was a design goal when designing system configuration. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Just found this - # cat dhclient-exit-hooks echo 'options rotate' >> /etc/resolv.conf That's where the last line in /etc/resolv.conf is coming from. Okay replacing the contents of dhclient-exit-hooks with echo -e 'nameserver 127.0.0.1\nnameserver ::1' > /etc/resolv.conf seems to do what I need. I hope RHEL/CentOS 8 do networking better, as in, not have spaghetti scripts called here and there making something that should be a config option hard to do. With DNS the only way to trust results is if the zone is signed and local resolver validates. You can't ever trust external nameservers defined by dhcp to validate. So there's very valid reasons to want to use local unbound. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager and /etc/resolv.conf
On 11/17/2018 06:43 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: CentOS 7.5 image running on linode. unbound running on localhost. Have to use a cron job once a minute to keep /etc/resolv.conf using the localhost for name resolution - whenever NetworkManager gets restarted (usually only a system boot) it gets over-written. It seems every distro has a different way of preventing NetworkManager from replacing that file. I found instructions for Fedora that said create /etc/NetworkManager/conf.d/no-dns.conf containing [main] dns=none That doesn't seem to have any effect. Poking around, I find a file on boot seems to be created called /var/run/NetworkManager/resolv.conf It has most of the contents of what ends up in /etc/resolv.conf - except w/o the last line, which just reads rotate in generated /etc/resolv.conf. It says it's generated by NetworkManager (both /etc/resolv.conf and the one in /var/run/NetworkManager) but neither are specific enough to indicate what is causing them to be created so I can turn it off. Anyone know how to tell NetworkManager to just not create that file? Using a cron job to overwrite it once a minute works but there must be a proper way. I really wish KISS was a design goal when designing system configuration. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Just found this - # cat dhclient-exit-hooks echo 'options rotate' >> /etc/resolv.conf That's where the last line in /etc/resolv.conf is coming from. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] NetworkManager and /etc/resolv.conf
CentOS 7.5 image running on linode. unbound running on localhost. Have to use a cron job once a minute to keep /etc/resolv.conf using the localhost for name resolution - whenever NetworkManager gets restarted (usually only a system boot) it gets over-written. It seems every distro has a different way of preventing NetworkManager from replacing that file. I found instructions for Fedora that said create /etc/NetworkManager/conf.d/no-dns.conf containing [main] dns=none That doesn't seem to have any effect. Poking around, I find a file on boot seems to be created called /var/run/NetworkManager/resolv.conf It has most of the contents of what ends up in /etc/resolv.conf - except w/o the last line, which just reads rotate in generated /etc/resolv.conf. It says it's generated by NetworkManager (both /etc/resolv.conf and the one in /var/run/NetworkManager) but neither are specific enough to indicate what is causing them to be created so I can turn it off. Anyone know how to tell NetworkManager to just not create that file? Using a cron job to overwrite it once a minute works but there must be a proper way. I really wish KISS was a design goal when designing system configuration. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager, multiple IPs, and selinux...
On 10/4/18 1:10 PM, Sean wrote: I was wondering if any one has seen issues with selinux name_bind denials that result from having IP:PORT bindings for services to specific IP addresses managed on an interface under NetworkManager's control? I don't. I have httpd processes listening on specific ports, and multiple addresses per interface managed by NetworkManager. I do realize that people will probably say stop using NetworkManager I don't see why. # systemctl start httpd permission denied binding to 192.168.1.10:443 ... I find the denial strange. I've done some testing such as removing one VHost's config and adding a NIC to the VM (eth1) and reconfigure to have 1 IP on each NIC and use both Vhosts. Either way, the selinux denial disappears and everything works. What makes you think it's an SELinux denial? Did you see an AVC logged in /var/log/audit/audit.log? Can you resolve the issue by setting the system to permissive mode? Either of those would suggest that the restriction is imposed by SELinux policy, but you didn't provide either of those as diagnostic evidence. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager, multiple IPs, and selinux...
On 10/4/18 4:10 PM, Sean wrote: > Hello, > > I was wondering if any one has seen issues with selinux name_bind denials > that result from having IP:PORT bindings for services to specific IP > addresses managed on an interface under NetworkManager's control? Is selinux denying the request or the socket? Does it work with setenforce permissive? > I do realize that people will probably say stop using NetworkManager, and I > may, but the behavior is strange, and I'd like to have a better > understanding of what's going on. > > The config is like so: > > # nmcli c mod eth0 ipv4.addresses 192.168.1.10/24,192.168.1.11/24 > # nmcli c down eth0 > # nmcli c up eth0 > # getenforce > Enforcing > # systemctl start httpd > permission denied binding to 192.168.1.10:443 > > Apache has two simple IP based VHosts, site1 and site2, with different (and > correct dns records and ssl certs). I'm snipping the config because I know > the Apache config works. > > Listen 443 > > ... > > ... > > I find the denial strange. I've done some testing such as removing one > VHost's config and adding a NIC to the VM (eth1) and reconfigure to have 1 > IP on each NIC and use both Vhosts. Either way, the selinux denial > disappears and everything works. All the packaged selinux policy relating > to httpd_t and access to port 443 is correct. > > I don't doubt that if I ditched NetworkManager and went for eth0:0 and > eth0:1 for the IP interfaces, all would be well. I'd just like to see if > anyone has some input on the issue. I don't believe apache selectively binds the socket to the address, but the interface. My suspicion is that you can only bind one listener for a port to an interface and not to individual IP addresses on the same interface. If you use "virtual" interfaces to separate the IP addresses (eth0:0, eth0:1) then I would expect it to work. - Mike ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] NetworkManager, multiple IPs, and selinux...
Hello, I was wondering if any one has seen issues with selinux name_bind denials that result from having IP:PORT bindings for services to specific IP addresses managed on an interface under NetworkManager's control? I do realize that people will probably say stop using NetworkManager, and I may, but the behavior is strange, and I'd like to have a better understanding of what's going on. The config is like so: # nmcli c mod eth0 ipv4.addresses 192.168.1.10/24,192.168.1.11/24 # nmcli c down eth0 # nmcli c up eth0 # getenforce Enforcing # systemctl start httpd permission denied binding to 192.168.1.10:443 Apache has two simple IP based VHosts, site1 and site2, with different (and correct dns records and ssl certs). I'm snipping the config because I know the Apache config works. Listen 443 ... ... I find the denial strange. I've done some testing such as removing one VHost's config and adding a NIC to the VM (eth1) and reconfigure to have 1 IP on each NIC and use both Vhosts. Either way, the selinux denial disappears and everything works. All the packaged selinux policy relating to httpd_t and access to port 443 is correct. I don't doubt that if I ditched NetworkManager and went for eth0:0 and eth0:1 for the IP interfaces, all would be well. I'd just like to see if anyone has some input on the issue. --Sean ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] NetworkManager and multiple dhcp router option
Hello, Our DHCP server broadcasts a router option consisting of 2 IPs. Ideally they should both be set as default routes with different metrics, however this is not what is happening, only the first one gets used. Anyone has any tips how to convince NetworkManager to do this? Cheers -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager updating resolv.cfg
Hi, It will be bug on &.2 but we are facing this issue on CentOS 6.8. In 6.8 also has this issue? Please suggest. Regards, Shagun -Original Message- From: CentOS [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of centos-requ...@centos.org Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 5:30 PM To: centos@centos.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] CentOS Digest, Vol 161, Issue 22 Send CentOS mailing list submissions to centos@centos.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/GaRh-9mT7pT2BGk25Szya6j4lyfBTXokdCA6hocGAkM=?d=jdUOEa0ursy6vviA72Wp9CQyzmNZP0ZhevOrPVBV93kfSdUe78CIUBKVVt6xyIm5Y6SyitPu2KPA0ZGPNr5i96qIZELuM-zDuX-IcuPAbZtv9AIDkJ5sr21UTb0PjQLFAB288PhGEyycPWXt6EcXQP4v75ttvql-G_l869C_llOrrtHDCxvG5N4tEBkTHwMA0Y2NdN16Xz3TyRWMbTpUywmcFKgiWH39hDRz50bU4bEX5OoEqu5GwbkgYVm0wClHPhkWTB6s2ljnB-_WaTuJTIyAqE92od3J9izxcFd-XfdbM8iNC4zZhyaL9UZinHIkddJdNI0zq8RFZXXiXP90NcKqdy9-sKPHjq12lAdprOZoFtvUCIJXX3NKhw%3D%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Flists.centos.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcentos or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to centos-requ...@centos.org You can reach the person managing the list at centos-ow...@centos.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of CentOS digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Specifying different options for different " smb" type gvfs mount (John Hodrien) 2. Re: NetworkManager updating resolv.cfg (peter.winterflood) 3. Re: Updated krb5 rpm package altered existing krb5.conf - No go (G?tz Reinicke) 4. Re: CentOS-6.9 Bind-9.8.2 error messages (James B. Byrne) 5. Imap daemons for CentOS 6 (other then cyrus-imapd) (Robert Heller) 6. Re: Imap daemons for CentOS 6 (other then cyrus-imapd) (James (CentOS ML)) 7. Re: Imap daemons for CentOS 6 (other then cyrus-imapd) (Frank Cox) 8. Re: Imap daemons for CentOS 6 (other then cyrus-imapd) (Walter H.) 9. Re: Imap daemons for CentOS 6 (other then cyrus-imapd) (Jonathan Billings) 10. Re: Specifying different options for different " smb" type gvfs mount (Gordon Messmer) 11. Re: Imap daemons for CentOS 6 (other then cyrus-imapd) (Robert Heller) 12. Re: Imap daemons for CentOS 6 (other then cyrus-imapd) (Valeri Galtsev) 13. Re: Imap daemons for CentOS 6 (other then cyrus-imapd) (Marcelo Ricardo Leitner) 14. Re: Imap daemons for CentOS 6 (other then cyrus-imapd) (Valeri Galtsev) 15. Re: Imap daemons for CentOS 6 (other then cyrus-imapd) (Jonathan Billings) 16. Re: Specifying different options for different " smb" type gvfs mount (John Hodrien) 17. Re: Imap daemons for CentOS 6 (other then cyrus-imapd) (Walter H.) 18. Re: Imap daemons for CentOS 6 (other then cyrus-imapd) (Walter H.) -- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 13:09:38 +0100 (BST) From: John Hodrien To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] Specifying different options for different " smb" type gvfs mount Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Thu, 21 Jun 2018, Toralf Lund wrote: > I known that I might use mount.cifs and related "fstab" entries as an > alternative, but its password handling seems a lot less convenient. If you're in an AD environment, you can probably do nicely with mount.cifs: sec=krb5,multiuser That way you don't have to deal with usernames/passwords at all. jh -- Message: 2 Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 13:14:08 +0100 From: "peter.winterflood" To: CentOS mailing list , anax Subject: Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager updating resolv.cfg Message-ID: <16422442280.27db.2b6837a33dad96cb17d193f32630f...@ossi.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="us-ascii" On 21 June 2018 12:13:02 "anax" wrote: > Hi Shagun > check your settings of PEERDNS and IPV6_PEERDNS... > > suomi > > On 06/21/2018 08:33 AM, Maheshwari, Shagun wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am facing issue stoping NetworkManager to update resolv.cfg, I am >> using below configuration for eth0 interface: >> >> TYPE=Ethernet >> BOOTPROTO=dhcp >> DEFROUTE=yes >> IPV4_FAILURE_FATAL=no >> IPV6INIT=yes >> IPV6_AUTOCONF=yes >> IPV6_DEFROUTE=yes >> IPV6_FAILURE_FATAL=no >> IPV6_ADDR_GEN_MODE=stable-privacy >> NAME=eth0 >> UUID=93b90a46-dab5-4a67-8fd0-fefe8874a8b9 >> DEVICE=eth0 >> ONBOOT=no >> PEERDNS=no >> PEERROUTES=yes >> IPV6_PEERDNS=yes >> IPV6_PEERROUTES=yes >> DNS1= >> DNS2= >> >> >> Also, added dns=none in NetworkManager.conf file. >> >> Whenever I am restarting NetworkManager, resolv.cfg gets upda
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager updating resolv.cfg
On 21 June 2018 12:13:02 "anax" wrote: Hi Shagun check your settings of PEERDNS and IPV6_PEERDNS... suomi On 06/21/2018 08:33 AM, Maheshwari, Shagun wrote: Hi, I am facing issue stoping NetworkManager to update resolv.cfg, I am using below configuration for eth0 interface: TYPE=Ethernet BOOTPROTO=dhcp DEFROUTE=yes IPV4_FAILURE_FATAL=no IPV6INIT=yes IPV6_AUTOCONF=yes IPV6_DEFROUTE=yes IPV6_FAILURE_FATAL=no IPV6_ADDR_GEN_MODE=stable-privacy NAME=eth0 UUID=93b90a46-dab5-4a67-8fd0-fefe8874a8b9 DEVICE=eth0 ONBOOT=no PEERDNS=no PEERROUTES=yes IPV6_PEERDNS=yes IPV6_PEERROUTES=yes DNS1= DNS2= Also, added dns=none in NetworkManager.conf file. Whenever I am restarting NetworkManager, resolv.cfg gets updated and only ipv4 nameserver is displaced, whether I am expecting both the ips (ipv6 and ipv4 address to be present in resolv.cfg file. Any suggestion here, how to achieve that?? Regards, Shagun ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos I think this was a bug in 7.2 have you updated your rpms. Peerdns ignored. Regards peter Sent with AquaMail for Android https://www.mobisystems.com/aqua-mail ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager updating resolv.cfg
Hi Shagun check your settings of PEERDNS and IPV6_PEERDNS... suomi On 06/21/2018 08:33 AM, Maheshwari, Shagun wrote: Hi, I am facing issue stoping NetworkManager to update resolv.cfg, I am using below configuration for eth0 interface: TYPE=Ethernet BOOTPROTO=dhcp DEFROUTE=yes IPV4_FAILURE_FATAL=no IPV6INIT=yes IPV6_AUTOCONF=yes IPV6_DEFROUTE=yes IPV6_FAILURE_FATAL=no IPV6_ADDR_GEN_MODE=stable-privacy NAME=eth0 UUID=93b90a46-dab5-4a67-8fd0-fefe8874a8b9 DEVICE=eth0 ONBOOT=no PEERDNS=no PEERROUTES=yes IPV6_PEERDNS=yes IPV6_PEERROUTES=yes DNS1= DNS2= Also, added dns=none in NetworkManager.conf file. Whenever I am restarting NetworkManager, resolv.cfg gets updated and only ipv4 nameserver is displaced, whether I am expecting both the ips (ipv6 and ipv4 address to be present in resolv.cfg file. Any suggestion here, how to achieve that?? Regards, Shagun ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] NetworkManager updating resolv.cfg
Hi, I am facing issue stoping NetworkManager to update resolv.cfg, I am using below configuration for eth0 interface: TYPE=Ethernet BOOTPROTO=dhcp DEFROUTE=yes IPV4_FAILURE_FATAL=no IPV6INIT=yes IPV6_AUTOCONF=yes IPV6_DEFROUTE=yes IPV6_FAILURE_FATAL=no IPV6_ADDR_GEN_MODE=stable-privacy NAME=eth0 UUID=93b90a46-dab5-4a67-8fd0-fefe8874a8b9 DEVICE=eth0 ONBOOT=no PEERDNS=no PEERROUTES=yes IPV6_PEERDNS=yes IPV6_PEERROUTES=yes DNS1= DNS2= Also, added dns=none in NetworkManager.conf file. Whenever I am restarting NetworkManager, resolv.cfg gets updated and only ipv4 nameserver is displaced, whether I am expecting both the ips (ipv6 and ipv4 address to be present in resolv.cfg file. Any suggestion here, how to achieve that?? Regards, Shagun ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] NetworkManager dnsmasq plugin
I am trying to get dnsmasq to work through NetworkManager by putting dns=dnsmasq into /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf NetworkManager still works but dnsmasq doesn't start. I get this error in /var/log/messages: could not load plugin 'dnsmasq' from file '/usr/lib64/NetworkManager/libnm-settings-plugin-dnsmasq.so And the referenced file doesn't exist, as stated. So where or how do I get libnm-settings-plugin-dnsmasq.so? I don't see any rpm that provides that file, though I'm hoping to be proved wrong of course. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] NetworkManager and Half DHCP not work correct - second time.
Hello Guys, today i strungle in my office and at home. 1. The networkadapter works before on "full" dhcp. 2. change to half (means searchname and searchserver manual) 3. order was correct inside the config, but in seperated network configs: PEERDNS=yes ? 5. DNS Server where in wrong direction in the consol. 4. I changed the PEERDNS entry at home manually. Reboot. Everything works as expected, nameserver in right order (NEW, OLD, OLD2). At my office i deleted every adapter and rearrange it. Strange, but true. Sincerely Andy PS: Don't tell me disable NetworkManager. I know both work out. :-) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] NetworkManager vs. Firewalld vs. /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-*****
I've made 3 CentOS 7 installation attempts to configure a simple firewall/router box with 2 nics. I got myself into a circular scenario where NetworkManager and firewalld and /etc/sysconfig/network-scrpts/ifcfg-* were interfering or overwriting each other. Needed to perform ifdown enp3s7 on the internal LAN nic in order to make the external internet enp2s0 reach websites and ping nameservers. After completing firewall-cmd --complete-reload the internal LAN nic would still provide private ip addresses via dhcpd server but LAN clients could not access the internet. So far these steps work to enable both nics to provide router and firewall services: 1. sysctemctl stop NetworkManager 2. systemctl disable NetworkManager 3. Create dhcp ifcfg-* for external interface. It must include a “ZONE=external” statement even though firewalld service will overwrite and erase it like this “ZONE=” Example (external/internet nic): Code: TYPE=Ethernet BOOTPROTO=dhcp NM_CONTROLLED=no DEFROUTE=yes IPV4_FAILURE_FATAL=no IPV6INIT=yes IPV6_AUTOCONF=yes IPV6_DEFROUTE=yes IPV6_FAILURE_FATAL=no NAME=enp2s0 UUID=---- DEVICE=enp2s0 ONBOOT=yes PEERDNS=yes PEERROUTES=yes IPV6_PEERDNS=yes IPV6_PEERROUTES=yes ZONE=external 4. Create static ip address ifcfg-enp3s7 for internal interface. Example (internal/LAN nic): Code: TYPE=Ethernet BOOTPROTO=static NM_CONTROLLED=no DEFROUTE=yes IPV4_FAILURE_FATAL=no IPV6INIT=yes IPV6_AUTOCONF=yes IPV6_DEFROUTE=yes IPV6_FAILURE_FATAL=no NAME=enp3s7 UUID=----xx DEVICE=enp3s7 ONBOOT=yes HWADDR=xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx DNS1=75.75.75.75 DNS2=75.75.76.76 IPADDR=10.10.1.1 NETMASK=255.255.255.0 PREFIX=24 GATEWAY=10.10.1.1 IPV6_PEERDNS=yes IPV6_PEERROUTES=yes IPV6_PRIVACY=no ZONE=internal 5. As said in #3, firewalld will erase the ZONE setting on the external nic configured for dhcp. The only way I've found to deal with this overwriting is to make the intended external ethernet device associated with the default zone in firewalld. When firewalld reads the empty zone reference "ZONE=" it will revert and assign the default zone I set like this --- Code: firewall-cmd --change-interface=enp2s0 --zone=external --permanent firewall-cmd --set-default-zone=external firewall-cmd --complete-reload 6. The external ethernet device won’t work (cannot ping any internet host) until you manually Deactivate it and then Reactivate it. ~# ifdown enp2s0 ~# ifup enp2s0 I didn't include my dhcpd server settings or firewalld settings for brevity. Please let me know if those would be helpful. Although the steps above work, it's definitely not ideal. If I need to reboot the routerbox remotely, I won't be able to access it again to perform the necessary ifdown/ifup routine to enable input/output/forward through the external interface. Any guidance on how to make this work is greatly appreciated. Kind regards. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] networkmanager VS OpenConnect VPN
I have a VPN connection using the openconnect vpn, and it is managed by network manager. Works fine. It has been on my system since the original Centos 7.x release. Now that I have Centos 7.3, while it still works fine, I find that I can no longer add a new connection using openconnect. I also find that I am not allowed to edit the existing openconnect vpn definition. attempting to create a new one lists only ipsec-based VPN as a choice, along with "import a saved VPN configuration". Attempting to edit the existing one pops up a little window that says: Could not edit connection Could not find VPN plugin for 'org.freedesktop.networkmanager.openconnect'. yum says I have the following items installed: yum list installed \*openconnect\* Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, langpacks, nvidia Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile * base: centos.mirror.constant.com * elrepo: mirrors.evowise.com * epel: mirrors.mit.edu * extras: mirror.cc.columbia.edu * nux-dextop: mirror.li.nux.ro * updates: mirrors.advancedhosters.com Installed Packages NetworkManager-openconnect.x86_64 0.9.8.6-2.el7 @epel openconnect.x86_64 7.06-1.el7 @epel this has worked for some long time, now, so what is wrong here? I don't think I"m missing any packages, because "yum list available" doesn't find anything else that seems to be needed, only -debuginfo and -devel. Anyone got a clue for me? thanks! Fred -- --- Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as the result of an unsolicited e-mail message. Nor will I forward chain letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers of others. This is my contribution to the survival of the online community. --Roger Ebert, December, 1996 - The Boulder Pledge - ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager icon not showing
Le 02/11/2016 à 17:16, Nicolas Kovacs a écrit : > I just installed CentOS 7 on my Asus S300 laptop. Wireless was working > OK at first, but now for mysterious reasons the NetworkManager icon > seems to have disappeared from the notification area. When I click on > that area, there's only information showing about sound, brightness, > battery status and the connected user. > > Which leaves me clueless. Any suggestions? I'll answer that myself, since I just found the culprit. I removed the avahi-autoipd package, without paying attention that this removed NetworkManager. Problem solved. -- Microlinux - Solutions informatiques durables 7, place de l'église - 30730 Montpezat Web : http://www.microlinux.fr Mail : i...@microlinux.fr Tél. : 04 66 63 10 32 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] NetworkManager icon not showing
Hi, I just installed CentOS 7 on my Asus S300 laptop. Wireless was working OK at first, but now for mysterious reasons the NetworkManager icon seems to have disappeared from the notification area. When I click on that area, there's only information showing about sound, brightness, battery status and the connected user. Which leaves me clueless. Any suggestions? Niki Kovacs -- Microlinux - Solutions informatiques durables 7, place de l'église - 30730 Montpezat Web : http://www.microlinux.fr Mail : i...@microlinux.fr Tél. : 04 66 63 10 32 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] NetworkManager default route
Hello, Why is it so, that NetworkManager allows, and in several cases I've had, defaults to setting default route to several interfaces at the same time? Had my fair share of problems with how 172.17.62.something interface tries to ask for a DHCP lease from 193.something network. I know I could set never-default to the interfaces, but I shouldn't have to do it to every machine I had. Especially bad was the situation when I had two VLANs and a normal ethernet interface, and dhclient tried to ask a lease for the ethernet over the VLAN. Best regards, -- Sander Kuusemets University of Tartu, High Performance Computing, IT Specialist ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager default route
Because I /*shouldn't */have to do that. It comes as a default network management service, so it's a bit counter-intuitive to have it drop the connection every few hours. And some parts of it are actually pretty good (nmcli -p con show). -- Sander Kuusemets University of Tartu, High Performance Computing, IT Specialist Skype: sander.kuusemets1 +372 737 5694 On 03/17/2016 09:18 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote: How about disabling network manager and using the static ip addresses? Eero 17.3.2016 9.05 ip. "Sander Kuusemets" kirjoitti: Hello, Why is it so, that NetworkManager allows, and in several cases I've had, defaults to setting default route to several interfaces at the same time? Had my fair share of problems with how 172.17.62.something interface tries to ask for a DHCP lease from 193.something network. I know I could set never-default to the interfaces, but I shouldn't have to do it to every machine I had. Especially bad was the situation when I had two VLANs and a normal ethernet interface, and dhclient tried to ask a lease for the ethernet over the VLAN. Best regards, -- Sander Kuusemets University of Tartu, High Performance Computing, IT Specialist ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager default route
How about disabling network manager and using the static ip addresses? Eero 17.3.2016 9.05 ip. "Sander Kuusemets" kirjoitti: > Hello, > > Why is it so, that NetworkManager allows, and in several cases I've had, > defaults to setting default route to several interfaces at the same time? > > Had my fair share of problems with how 172.17.62.something interface tries > to ask for a DHCP lease from 193.something network. I know I could set > never-default to the interfaces, but I shouldn't have to do it to every > machine I had. > > Especially bad was the situation when I had two VLANs and a normal > ethernet interface, and dhclient tried to ask a lease for the ethernet over > the VLAN. > > Best regards, > > -- > Sander Kuusemets > University of Tartu, High Performance Computing, IT Specialist > > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager default route
On 03/17/2016 12:04 PM, Sander Kuusemets wrote: Why is it so, that NetworkManager allows, and in several cases I've had, defaults to setting default route to several interfaces at the same time? It does what the operators of the networks tell it to do. Had my fair share of problems with how 172.17.62.something interface tries to ask for a DHCP lease from 193.something network. Specifically why is that wrong? If the interface is physically attached to broadcast domain where a DHCP server provides information for 193.something, then presumably that is the information that the client should use. I know I could set never-default to the interfaces, but I shouldn't have to do it to every machine I had. Well, the way you would avoid configuring every client would be to offer consistent information from DHCP. Especially bad was the situation when I had two VLANs and a normal ethernet interface, and dhclient tried to ask a lease for the ethernet over the VLAN. Do you mean tagged VLANs? What you're describing shouldn't be possible. If the client doesn't know about a tagged VLAN, it can't transmit a tagged packet containing a DHCP request. If that's not what you're describing, the problem really isn't clear. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] NetworkManager and network service
Hi, folks, I 've created interfaces files with the NM_CONTROLLED=no statement and I've found that even after restarting network services changes are not commited. Only it worked after running nmcli connection reload restart of the network service worked. I wonder if it's either a feature or a bug... Could you help me? Thanks in advance! -- -- Sergio Belkin LPIC-2 Certified - http://www.lpi.org ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager / wireless on latest Centos7 installs
On 12 Jun 2015 10:30, wrote: > > I can't believe I mist that. > > Running transaction > Installeren : 1:NetworkManager-wifi-1.0.0-14.git20150121.b4ea599c.el7.x86_64 1/1 > Verifiëren : 1:NetworkManager-wifi-1.0.0-14.git20150121.b4ea599c.el7.x86_64 1/1 > > Geïnstalleerd: > NetworkManager-wifi.x86_64 1:1.0.0-14.git20150121.b4ea599c.el7 > > Compleet! > [root@madriaenssens ~]# nmcli d > DEVICE TYPE STATE CONNECTION > p4p1ethernet connected p4p1 > tun0tun connected tun0 > lo loopback unmanaged -- > wlp1s0 wifi unmanaged -- > [root@madriaenssens ~]# systemctl restart NetworkManager > [root@madriaenssens ~]# nmcli d > DEVICE TYPE STATECONNECTION > p4p1ethernet connectedp4p1 > tun0tun connectedtun0 > wlp1s0 wifi unavailable -- > lo loopback unmanaged-- > > Thank you VERY much for your help. No problem Check the other sub packages that got split like Bluetooth and wwan If you have mobile users that make use of certain dongles or tethering you may want to include these as well. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager / wireless on latest Centos7 installs
- Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: "James Hogarth" Aan: "CentOS mailing list" Verzonden: Donderdag 11 juni 2015 19:59:39 Onderwerp: Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager / wireless on latest Centos7 installs On 11 Jun 2015 13:28, wrote: > > > > - Oorspronkelijk bericht - > Van: "johan vermeulen7" > Aan: "CentOS mailing list" > Verzonden: Dinsdag 9 juni 2015 18:23:58 > Onderwerp: Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager / wireless on latest Centos7 installs > > > > - Oorspronkelijk bericht - > Van: "m roth" > Aan: "CentOS mailing list" > Verzonden: Dinsdag 9 juni 2015 16:36:40 > Onderwerp: Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager / wireless on latest Centos7 installs > > Fred Smith wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 11:51:46AM +0200, johan.vermeul...@telenet.be > > wrote: > >> Hello All, > >> > >> on the latest installs I've done, on 2 different types of Latitude > >> laptops, with 3 different wireless cars, of Centos7 and Mate desktop, > >> it looks to me like NetworkManager is nog managing wireless. > >> When clicking the nm icon in the top right corner, I'm not seeing access > >> points. > > > > FWIW, it seems to work properly on my Acer Aspire One netbook... > > Out Of The Box, as the phrase goes. > > Dumb question: on my old Latitude, I have to make sure wireless is turned > on with the little on the right side of the laptop. (When I bring it into > work for conformation conformance, they turn it off, since they plug it > in) > > mark > > Hello Mark & Fred, > > thanks for the reply's. > > See the last part of the my mail: > > > The only difference I can think of, is that I now installed from Centos7.1 minimal install media, and before from Centos7 DVD. > But there I also select minimal install. > > > And then I sent another mail saying: > > > and that is indeed the case. > > When installing from Centos7 DVD, I end up with wireless managed by NetworkManager > When I install form the more recent 7.1 minimal install media ( not sure of the exact name ) I end up with wireless not managed > by NetworkManager. > > Further, for as long as I can remember, I always try to get rid of gnome keyring by renaming: > > mv /usr/bin/gnome-keyring /usr/bin/gnome-keyring.bak > mv /usr/bin/gnome-keyring-3 /usr/bin/gnome-keyring-3.bak > mv /usr/bin/gnome-keyring-daemon /usr/bin/gnome-keyring-daemon.bak > > but now this is preventing me from connecting to wireless networks. > > Greetings, Johan > > > Hello All, > > this problem got bigger for me, and I could realy use some help. > I now installed from a CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503-01.iso, selecting minimal install in Anaconda. > After the install, the wireless interface shows up unmanaged by NetworkManager. > > Before, I thought this could be due to using the minimal install media. > > [root@localhost ~]# nmcli d > DEVICE TYPE STATE CONNECTION > p4p1 ethernet connected p4p1 > lo loopback unmanaged -- > wlp1s0 wifi unmanaged -- > > After installing the same way in Centos7, the wireless card is automaticaly managed by NetworkManager as far as I > can tell. > > lspci shows the right kernel module so this is not a driver issue. I use the same wifi cards in all the machines. > > I'm sure there are ways to make this work without NetworkManager, but I would like to have my users > just click on the nm icon and select a wireless network. > > Can anyone shed some light on this? > > Many thanks. > Johan > > > Note the section in the release notes about NetworkManager being split into subpackages https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/7.1_Release_Notes/chap-Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux-7.1_Release_Notes-Networking.html You mentioned you were starting from minimal yum install NetworkManager-wifi James, I can't believe I mist that. Running transaction Installeren : 1:NetworkManager-wifi-1.0.0-14.git20150121.b4ea599c.el7.x86_64 1/1 Verifiëren : 1:NetworkManager-wifi-1.0.0-14.git20150121.b4ea599c.el7.x86_64 1/1 Geïnstalleerd: NetworkManager-wifi.x86_64 1:1.0.0-14.git20150121.b4ea599c.el7 Compleet! [root@madriaenssens ~]# nmcli d DEVICE TYPE STATE CONNECTION p4p1ethernet connected p4p1 tun0tun connected tun0 lo loopback unmanaged -- wlp1s0 wifi unmanaged --
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager / wireless on latest Centos7 installs
On 11 Jun 2015 13:28, wrote: > > > > - Oorspronkelijk bericht - > Van: "johan vermeulen7" > Aan: "CentOS mailing list" > Verzonden: Dinsdag 9 juni 2015 18:23:58 > Onderwerp: Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager / wireless on latest Centos7 installs > > > > - Oorspronkelijk bericht - > Van: "m roth" > Aan: "CentOS mailing list" > Verzonden: Dinsdag 9 juni 2015 16:36:40 > Onderwerp: Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager / wireless on latest Centos7 installs > > Fred Smith wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 11:51:46AM +0200, johan.vermeul...@telenet.be > > wrote: > >> Hello All, > >> > >> on the latest installs I've done, on 2 different types of Latitude > >> laptops, with 3 different wireless cars, of Centos7 and Mate desktop, > >> it looks to me like NetworkManager is nog managing wireless. > >> When clicking the nm icon in the top right corner, I'm not seeing access > >> points. > > > > FWIW, it seems to work properly on my Acer Aspire One netbook... > > Out Of The Box, as the phrase goes. > > Dumb question: on my old Latitude, I have to make sure wireless is turned > on with the little on the right side of the laptop. (When I bring it into > work for conformation conformance, they turn it off, since they plug it > in) > > mark > > Hello Mark & Fred, > > thanks for the reply's. > > See the last part of the my mail: > > > The only difference I can think of, is that I now installed from Centos7.1 minimal install media, and before from Centos7 DVD. > But there I also select minimal install. > > > And then I sent another mail saying: > > > and that is indeed the case. > > When installing from Centos7 DVD, I end up with wireless managed by NetworkManager > When I install form the more recent 7.1 minimal install media ( not sure of the exact name ) I end up with wireless not managed > by NetworkManager. > > Further, for as long as I can remember, I always try to get rid of gnome keyring by renaming: > > mv /usr/bin/gnome-keyring /usr/bin/gnome-keyring.bak > mv /usr/bin/gnome-keyring-3 /usr/bin/gnome-keyring-3.bak > mv /usr/bin/gnome-keyring-daemon /usr/bin/gnome-keyring-daemon.bak > > but now this is preventing me from connecting to wireless networks. > > Greetings, Johan > > > Hello All, > > this problem got bigger for me, and I could realy use some help. > I now installed from a CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503-01.iso, selecting minimal install in Anaconda. > After the install, the wireless interface shows up unmanaged by NetworkManager. > > Before, I thought this could be due to using the minimal install media. > > [root@localhost ~]# nmcli d > DEVICE TYPE STATE CONNECTION > p4p1 ethernet connected p4p1 > lo loopback unmanaged -- > wlp1s0 wifi unmanaged -- > > After installing the same way in Centos7, the wireless card is automaticaly managed by NetworkManager as far as I > can tell. > > lspci shows the right kernel module so this is not a driver issue. I use the same wifi cards in all the machines. > > I'm sure there are ways to make this work without NetworkManager, but I would like to have my users > just click on the nm icon and select a wireless network. > > Can anyone shed some light on this? > > Many thanks. > Johan > > > Note the section in the release notes about NetworkManager being split into subpackages https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/7.1_Release_Notes/chap-Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux-7.1_Release_Notes-Networking.html You mentioned you were starting from minimal yum install NetworkManager-wifi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager / wireless on latest Centos7 installs
- Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: "johan vermeulen7" Aan: "CentOS mailing list" Verzonden: Dinsdag 9 juni 2015 18:23:58 Onderwerp: Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager / wireless on latest Centos7 installs - Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: "m roth" Aan: "CentOS mailing list" Verzonden: Dinsdag 9 juni 2015 16:36:40 Onderwerp: Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager / wireless on latest Centos7 installs Fred Smith wrote: > On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 11:51:46AM +0200, johan.vermeul...@telenet.be > wrote: >> Hello All, >> >> on the latest installs I've done, on 2 different types of Latitude >> laptops, with 3 different wireless cars, of Centos7 and Mate desktop, >> it looks to me like NetworkManager is nog managing wireless. >> When clicking the nm icon in the top right corner, I'm not seeing access >> points. > > FWIW, it seems to work properly on my Acer Aspire One netbook... > Out Of The Box, as the phrase goes. Dumb question: on my old Latitude, I have to make sure wireless is turned on with the little on the right side of the laptop. (When I bring it into work for conformation conformance, they turn it off, since they plug it in) mark Hello Mark & Fred, thanks for the reply's. See the last part of the my mail: The only difference I can think of, is that I now installed from Centos7.1 minimal install media, and before from Centos7 DVD. But there I also select minimal install. And then I sent another mail saying: and that is indeed the case. When installing from Centos7 DVD, I end up with wireless managed by NetworkManager When I install form the more recent 7.1 minimal install media ( not sure of the exact name ) I end up with wireless not managed by NetworkManager. Further, for as long as I can remember, I always try to get rid of gnome keyring by renaming: mv /usr/bin/gnome-keyring /usr/bin/gnome-keyring.bak mv /usr/bin/gnome-keyring-3 /usr/bin/gnome-keyring-3.bak mv /usr/bin/gnome-keyring-daemon /usr/bin/gnome-keyring-daemon.bak but now this is preventing me from connecting to wireless networks. Greetings, Johan Hello All, this problem got bigger for me, and I could realy use some help. I now installed from a CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503-01.iso, selecting minimal install in Anaconda. After the install, the wireless interface shows up unmanaged by NetworkManager. Before, I thought this could be due to using the minimal install media. [root@localhost ~]# nmcli d DEVICE TYPE STATE CONNECTION p4p1 ethernet connected p4p1 lo loopback unmanaged -- wlp1s0 wifi unmanaged -- After installing the same way in Centos7, the wireless card is automaticaly managed by NetworkManager as far as I can tell. lspci shows the right kernel module so this is not a driver issue. I use the same wifi cards in all the machines. I'm sure there are ways to make this work without NetworkManager, but I would like to have my users just click on the nm icon and select a wireless network. Can anyone shed some light on this? Many thanks. Johan ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager / wireless on latest Centos7 installs
- Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: "m roth" Aan: "CentOS mailing list" Verzonden: Dinsdag 9 juni 2015 16:36:40 Onderwerp: Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager / wireless on latest Centos7 installs Fred Smith wrote: > On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 11:51:46AM +0200, johan.vermeul...@telenet.be > wrote: >> Hello All, >> >> on the latest installs I've done, on 2 different types of Latitude >> laptops, with 3 different wireless cars, of Centos7 and Mate desktop, >> it looks to me like NetworkManager is nog managing wireless. >> When clicking the nm icon in the top right corner, I'm not seeing access >> points. > > FWIW, it seems to work properly on my Acer Aspire One netbook... > Out Of The Box, as the phrase goes. Dumb question: on my old Latitude, I have to make sure wireless is turned on with the little on the right side of the laptop. (When I bring it into work for conformation conformance, they turn it off, since they plug it in) mark Hello Mark & Fred, thanks for the reply's. See the last part of the my mail: The only difference I can think of, is that I now installed from Centos7.1 minimal install media, and before from Centos7 DVD. But there I also select minimal install. And then I sent another mail saying: and that is indeed the case. When installing from Centos7 DVD, I end up with wireless managed by NetworkManager When I install form the more recent 7.1 minimal install media ( not sure of the exact name ) I end up with wireless not managed by NetworkManager. Further, for as long as I can remember, I always try to get rid of gnome keyring by renaming: mv /usr/bin/gnome-keyring /usr/bin/gnome-keyring.bak mv /usr/bin/gnome-keyring-3 /usr/bin/gnome-keyring-3.bak mv /usr/bin/gnome-keyring-daemon /usr/bin/gnome-keyring-daemon.bak but now this is preventing me from connecting to wireless networks. Greetings, Johan ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager / wireless on latest Centos7 installs
Fred Smith wrote: > On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 11:51:46AM +0200, johan.vermeul...@telenet.be > wrote: >> Hello All, >> >> on the latest installs I've done, on 2 different types of Latitude >> laptops, with 3 different wireless cars, of Centos7 and Mate desktop, >> it looks to me like NetworkManager is nog managing wireless. >> When clicking the nm icon in the top right corner, I'm not seeing access >> points. > > FWIW, it seems to work properly on my Acer Aspire One netbook... > Out Of The Box, as the phrase goes. Dumb question: on my old Latitude, I have to make sure wireless is turned on with the little on the right side of the laptop. (When I bring it into work for conformation conformance, they turn it off, since they plug it in) mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager / wireless on latest Centos7 installs
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 11:51:46AM +0200, johan.vermeul...@telenet.be wrote: > Hello All, > > on the latest installs I've done, on 2 different types of Latitude laptops, > with 3 different wireless cars, of Centos7 and Mate desktop, > it looks to me like NetworkManager is nog managing wireless. > When clicking the nm icon in the top right corner, I'm not seeing access > points. FWIW, it seems to work properly on my Acer Aspire One netbook... Out Of The Box, as the phrase goes. -- --- Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as the result of an unsolicited e-mail message. Nor will I forward chain letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers of others. This is my contribution to the survival of the online community. --Roger Ebert, December, 1996 - The Boulder Pledge - ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager / wireless on latest Centos7 installs
- Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: "johan vermeulen7" Aan: "CentOS mailing list" Verzonden: Dinsdag 9 juni 2015 11:51:46 Onderwerp: [CentOS] NetworkManager / wireless on latest Centos7 installs Hello All, on the latest installs I've done, on 2 different types of Latitude laptops, with 3 different wireless cars, of Centos7 and Mate desktop, it looks to me like NetworkManager is nog managing wireless. When clicking the nm icon in the top right corner, I'm not seeing access points. Wifi seems enabled [root@localhost ~]# nmcli g STATE CONNECTIVITY WIFI-HW WIFI WWAN-HW WWAN connected full enabled enabled enabled enabled but unmanaged [root@localhost ~]# nmcli d DEVICE TYPE STATE CONNECTION enp0s25 ethernet connected enp0s25 lo loopback unmanaged -- wlp12s0 wifi unmanaged -- I always start from a minimal install. Then I install X Window packages, and Mate The only difference I can think of, is that I now installed from Centos7.1 minimal install media, and before from Centos7 DVD. But there I also select minimal install. How can I change this? Greetings, Johan and that is indeed the case. When installing from Centos7 DVD, I end up with wireless managed by NetworkManager When I install form the more recent 7.1 minimal install media ( not sure of the exact name ) I end up with wireless not managed by NetworkManager. Further, for as long as I can remember, I always try to get rid of gnome keyring by renaming: mv /usr/bin/gnome-keyring /usr/bin/gnome-keyring.bak mv /usr/bin/gnome-keyring-3 /usr/bin/gnome-keyring-3.bak mv /usr/bin/gnome-keyring-daemon /usr/bin/gnome-keyring-daemon.bak but now this is preventing me from connecting to wireless networks. Greetings, Johan ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] NetworkManager / wireless on latest Centos7 installs
Hello All, on the latest installs I've done, on 2 different types of Latitude laptops, with 3 different wireless cars, of Centos7 and Mate desktop, it looks to me like NetworkManager is nog managing wireless. When clicking the nm icon in the top right corner, I'm not seeing access points. Wifi seems enabled [root@localhost ~]# nmcli g STATE CONNECTIVITY WIFI-HW WIFI WWAN-HW WWAN connected full enabled enabled enabled enabled but unmanaged [root@localhost ~]# nmcli d DEVICE TYPE STATE CONNECTION enp0s25 ethernet connected enp0s25 lo loopback unmanaged -- wlp12s0 wifi unmanaged -- I always start from a minimal install. Then I install X Window packages, and Mate The only difference I can think of, is that I now installed from Centos7.1 minimal install media, and before from Centos7 DVD. But there I also select minimal install. How can I change this? Greetings, Johan ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager fights with DHCP-only backup NIC
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Warren Young wrote: > >> Really? That's insane. Our wired jacks are not on the same subnets >> as our access points. I'm not sure that's even possible with the >> Cisco units that have separate controllers. > > In such a network, you won’t run static IP configuration on such boxes. > You’ll use DHCP. > > On my home LAN, this automatic static IP migration is *exactly* what I want > on my laptop. I don't get it. Laptops are portable. Don't you ever go out of your house? If you control everything you can easily tell your dhcp server what IP to give it when you are there. > The current NetworkManager design isn’t unequivocally wrong. It’s a sensible > default for Fedora. It’s just not the right choice for enterprise Linux > servers. > > If you want to go and argue that Fedora shouldn’t be driving CentOS, it’s not > an impossible position to take, but you have to fill in the blank spot it > leaves. What would drive CentOS instead? I'd argue that splitting the community into separate groups - one that likes the design of unix/linux and runs large numbers of servers because they like it, and one that would really rather have a windows desktop for their only machine was the wrong thing to do in the first place. And having broken the community, letting the group that doesn't like the product in the first place control the design is probably a bad thing too. Red Hat wasn't that bad back when the people using it contributed directly to its development and were able to use the result. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager fights with DHCP-only backup NIC
On Dec 2, 2014, at 2:34 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Warren Young wrote: >> On Dec 2, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: >> Think 'laptop'. >>> >>> Why would you need a static IP to stick to a laptop? Or have >>> multiple NICs on one? >> >> Wired and WiFi. >> >> If you configure a static IP with the wired Ethernet plugged in, you >> probably want that static IP to continue being used when you unplug the >> Ethernet cable and NM switches you over automatically to WiFi. NM does this. > > > Really? That's insane. Our wired jacks are not on the same subnets > as our access points. I'm not sure that's even possible with the > Cisco units that have separate controllers. In such a network, you won’t run static IP configuration on such boxes. You’ll use DHCP. On my home LAN, this automatic static IP migration is *exactly* what I want on my laptop. The current NetworkManager design isn’t unequivocally wrong. It’s a sensible default for Fedora. It’s just not the right choice for enterprise Linux servers. If you want to go and argue that Fedora shouldn’t be driving CentOS, it’s not an impossible position to take, but you have to fill in the blank spot it leaves. What would drive CentOS instead? >> This is why I want a checkbox in the NM GUI: “This is a 4U server, dummy, >> not a laptop.” > > How about just 'don't be stupid’ ? More like “Don’t be clever, NetworkManager, I’m better at it.” ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager fights with DHCP-only backup NIC
On Dec 2, 2014, at 2:28 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Warren Young wrote: >>> >>> What part of the breakage that NetworkManager does is good for a >>> wired, static-addressed server? >> >> If you disable NM, the network configuration GUI stops working in EL7. > > But can't you still set NM_CONTROLLED=no on an interface? That still effectively breaks the network settings GUI. Interfaces you mark that way show as “unmanaged” in the GUI, and you can’t modify any of their settings. You can’t change them back to “managed” via the GUI. You can’t even add an IP alias to them via the GUI. If you’re suggesting that I do this only to the static interface and leave the DHCP one under NM’s control, the only improvement relative to disabling NM entirely is that it at least gives the semi-technical people on site the option of repurposing the DHCP interface as a secondary static interface. That’s not useless, but it’s a far cry from the MAC bonding I’m after. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager fights with DHCP-only backup NIC
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Warren Young wrote: > On Dec 2, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > >>> Think 'laptop'. >> >> Why would you need a static IP to stick to a laptop? Or have >> multiple NICs on one? > > Wired and WiFi. > > If you configure a static IP with the wired Ethernet plugged in, you probably > want that static IP to continue being used when you unplug the Ethernet cable > and NM switches you over automatically to WiFi. NM does this. Really? That's insane. Our wired jacks are not on the same subnets as our access points. I'm not sure that's even possible with the Cisco units that have separate controllers. > This is why I want a checkbox in the NM GUI: “This is a 4U server, dummy, not > a laptop.” How about just 'don't be stupid' ? -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager fights with DHCP-only backup NIC
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Warren Young wrote: > > >> What part of the breakage that NetworkManager does is good for a >> wired, static-addressed server? > > If you disable NM, the network configuration GUI stops working in EL7. (I > didn’t do much with EL6, but I thought its GUI had a fall-back for the non-NM > case.) > > We don’t need this GUI, but our semi-technical customers sometimes do. It > can be the difference between rolling a truck to a remote site vs letting the > on-site people take care of the problem. But can't you still set NM_CONTROLLED=no on an interface? >> you should be able to ssh to some other box on the working network, > > I did mention that these sites rarely have local staff who know Linux. You > can correctly infer from that there *are* no other SSH servers, just ours. > > These are K-12 schools, for the most part. They often don’t have technical > staff on-site at all. We have to schedule time with overworked > district-level staff who often only know Windows to get anything at this > level done. > We’ve built up nasty hacks to solve this before; VPN -> RDP -> PuTTY -> Linux > server, for instance. Getting protective network admins to allow all this > can chew up weeks of time. I'm way too familiar with the problem - but we usually have several boxes in one place. > It’s far, far better if the Linux box just phones home with the info we need > to fix it. It can cut a 4-week phone tag game down to 15 minutes. I've done some weird stuff like scripts that bring up all the interfaces, look for link, apply one of the IPs that the box should have to one of the interfaces with link up, try to ping the gateway, lather, rinse, repeat, but I've never been happy with any of it. Maybe a USB wifi adapter could be set up to make an openvpn connection back to a home server if you know the location has wifi. That could give you a known private IP to connect to for the rest of the configuration. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager fights with DHCP-only backup NIC
On Dec 2, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: >> Think 'laptop'. > > Why would you need a static IP to stick to a laptop? Or have > multiple NICs on one? Wired and WiFi. If you configure a static IP with the wired Ethernet plugged in, you probably want that static IP to continue being used when you unplug the Ethernet cable and NM switches you over automatically to WiFi. NM does this. This is why I want a checkbox in the NM GUI: “This is a 4U server, dummy, not a laptop.” ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager fights with DHCP-only backup NIC
On Dec 2, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Warren Young wrote: >> Again, I’m not really after a way to make this work without NetworkManager. > > What part of the breakage that NetworkManager does is good for a > wired, static-addressed server? If you disable NM, the network configuration GUI stops working in EL7. (I didn’t do much with EL6, but I thought its GUI had a fall-back for the non-NM case.) We don’t need this GUI, but our semi-technical customers sometimes do. It can be the difference between rolling a truck to a remote site vs letting the on-site people take care of the problem. > you should be able to ssh to some other box on the working network, I did mention that these sites rarely have local staff who know Linux. You can correctly infer from that there *are* no other SSH servers, just ours. These are K-12 schools, for the most part. They often don’t have technical staff on-site at all. We have to schedule time with overworked district-level staff who often only know Windows to get anything at this level done. We’ve built up nasty hacks to solve this before; VPN -> RDP -> PuTTY -> Linux server, for instance. Getting protective network admins to allow all this can chew up weeks of time. It’s far, far better if the Linux box just phones home with the info we need to fix it. It can cut a 4-week phone tag game down to 15 minutes. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager fights with DHCP-only backup NIC
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 7:52 AM, James B. Byrne wrote: > > On Mon, December 1, 2014 16:48, Les Mikesell wrote: >> >> Is there anyone who has more than a few boxes at more than one >> location who _doesn't_ have this issue? I'd like to see a FAQ or >> something by whoever designed the network configuration system about >> how they planned for it to work (with and without GUI availability). >> Likewise for what is supposed to happen when you restore a backup onto >> different hardware. >> > > Think 'laptop'. Why would you need a static IP to stick to a laptop? Or have multiple NICs on one? -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager fights with DHCP-only backup NIC
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Warren Young wrote: > On Dec 1, 2014, at 10:27 PM, Rob Kampen wrote: > >> Have you put >> NM_CONTROLLED="no" >> in the ifcfg-eth0 script? > > How is that better than > > systemctl stop NetworkManager > systemctl disable NetworkManager > > Again, I’m not really after a way to make this work without NetworkManager. > We’ve already got that. What I want is a way to tell NM to obey the MAC > binding. This configuration *here* goes with that MAC chip *there*. > > Given that, we don’t need to disable NetworkManager. What part of the breakage that NetworkManager does is good for a wired, static-addressed server?But, in your scenario where both nics are plugged in and your only problem is the non-working gateway IP you should be able to ssh to some other box on the working network, then over to the new ones DHCP address. The gateway won't matter if both ends are on the same subnet. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager fights with DHCP-only backup NIC
On Dec 1, 2014, at 10:27 PM, Rob Kampen wrote: > Have you put > NM_CONTROLLED="no" > in the ifcfg-eth0 script? How is that better than systemctl stop NetworkManager systemctl disable NetworkManager Again, I’m not really after a way to make this work without NetworkManager. We’ve already got that. What I want is a way to tell NM to obey the MAC binding. This configuration *here* goes with that MAC chip *there*. Given that, we don’t need to disable NetworkManager. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager fights with DHCP-only backup NIC
On Mon, December 1, 2014 16:48, Les Mikesell wrote: > > Is there anyone who has more than a few boxes at more than one > location who _doesn't_ have this issue? I'd like to see a FAQ or > something by whoever designed the network configuration system about > how they planned for it to work (with and without GUI availability). > Likewise for what is supposed to happen when you restore a backup onto > different hardware. > Think 'laptop'. -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrnemailto:byrn...@harte-lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager fights with DHCP-only backup NIC
On 12/02/2014 10:35 AM, Warren Young wrote: We ship servers to remote sites, which are rarely staffed with techs familiar with Linux. We have them tell us the static IP configuration for the box before we ship it, then we set it up for them here and ship it out to the site, where they just plug it in, turn it on, and walk away. That’s the ideal, anyway. What often happens in reality is either: 1. They give us incorrect static IP info, so the box arrives and won’t connect to the Internet, which means we often have to arrange to get someone clueful on-site to fix it. 2. The site is in the middle of some major deployment, a small piece of which is our server, so the LAN isn’t ready, but they demand the box be shipped early anyway for some handwavy business reason. "No, we can’t tell you what static IP to use," they say. "Just configure it on-site," they say. Sigh. Since these systems have 2+ Ethernet ports and we really only need one in normal operations, we’ve taken to configuring the second one for DHCP, so that they can just move the cable from the primary port to the secondary. This works fine in CentOS 5: DHCP comes up and takes over, giving us the access we need to fix/configure the static IP on the primary port. What happens in CentOS 7 depends on whether you plug in one cable or two: 1. If you plug in only one cable, NetworkManager sees that the static interface is unplugged, so it *helpfully* moves that IP to the secondary NIC, apparently on the assumption that static is always better than DHCP. This is of no use to us, since all it does is move the problem to the other NIC. 2. If you plug both cables in, both interfaces come up configured as you’d expect, but since both configurations provided a gateway address, you still can’t get out to the Internet since the static one came up first, and it’s pointing at an unreachable box. I think all we need to do to fix this is convince NetworkManager not to be clever about moving the static IP to the second NIC. Alas, there is no checkbox in the NM GUI labeled “This is a 4U server, dummy, not a laptop.” Anyone know how to convince NM to obey the MAC binding in the ifcfg-* file, to prevent NM from moving the broken static IP info to the second NIC? Have you put NM_CONTROLLED="no" in the ifcfg-eth0 script? Yes, we know we can still disable NetworkManager and edit network-scripts/ifcfg-* directly. We’d just prefer not to fight the OS. Also, unlike EL6, disabling NM on EL7 breaks the network GUI, which we’ve occasionally found helpful, as when we have a semi-clueful tech at the remote site. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager fights with DHCP-only backup NIC
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Nathan Duehr wrote: > >> >>> We ship servers to remote sites, which are rarely staffed with techs >>> familiar with Linux. We have them tell us the static IP configuration for >>> the box before we ship it, then we set it up for them here and ship it out >>> to the site, where they just plug it in, turn it on, and walk away. >>> >>> That’s the ideal, anyway. >>> >> >> Is there anyone who has more than a few boxes at more than one >> location who _doesn't_ have this issue? I'd like to see a FAQ or >> something by whoever designed the network configuration system about >> how they planned for it to work (with and without GUI availability). >> Likewise for what is supposed to happen when you restore a backup onto >> different hardware. > > Most of the time, I end up nuking HWADDR from orbit on most boxes. It just > causes more trouble than it fixes. Sure, but the interface names will be different in the 'restore backup case' - especially on servers that have several. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager fights with DHCP-only backup NIC
> On Dec 1, 2014, at 14:48, Les Mikesell wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Warren Young wrote: > >> We ship servers to remote sites, which are rarely staffed with techs >> familiar with Linux. We have them tell us the static IP configuration for >> the box before we ship it, then we set it up for them here and ship it out >> to the site, where they just plug it in, turn it on, and walk away. >> >> That’s the ideal, anyway. >> > > Is there anyone who has more than a few boxes at more than one > location who _doesn't_ have this issue? I'd like to see a FAQ or > something by whoever designed the network configuration system about > how they planned for it to work (with and without GUI availability). > Likewise for what is supposed to happen when you restore a backup onto > different hardware. Most of the time, I end up nuking HWADDR from orbit on most boxes. It just causes more trouble than it fixes. -- Nate Duehr denverpi...@me.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager fights with DHCP-only backup NIC
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Warren Young wrote: > We ship servers to remote sites, which are rarely staffed with techs familiar > with Linux. We have them tell us the static IP configuration for the box > before we ship it, then we set it up for them here and ship it out to the > site, where they just plug it in, turn it on, and walk away. > > That’s the ideal, anyway. > Is there anyone who has more than a few boxes at more than one location who _doesn't_ have this issue? I'd like to see a FAQ or something by whoever designed the network configuration system about how they planned for it to work (with and without GUI availability). Likewise for what is supposed to happen when you restore a backup onto different hardware. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] NetworkManager fights with DHCP-only backup NIC
We ship servers to remote sites, which are rarely staffed with techs familiar with Linux. We have them tell us the static IP configuration for the box before we ship it, then we set it up for them here and ship it out to the site, where they just plug it in, turn it on, and walk away. That’s the ideal, anyway. What often happens in reality is either: 1. They give us incorrect static IP info, so the box arrives and won’t connect to the Internet, which means we often have to arrange to get someone clueful on-site to fix it. 2. The site is in the middle of some major deployment, a small piece of which is our server, so the LAN isn’t ready, but they demand the box be shipped early anyway for some handwavy business reason. "No, we can’t tell you what static IP to use," they say. "Just configure it on-site," they say. Sigh. Since these systems have 2+ Ethernet ports and we really only need one in normal operations, we’ve taken to configuring the second one for DHCP, so that they can just move the cable from the primary port to the secondary. This works fine in CentOS 5: DHCP comes up and takes over, giving us the access we need to fix/configure the static IP on the primary port. What happens in CentOS 7 depends on whether you plug in one cable or two: 1. If you plug in only one cable, NetworkManager sees that the static interface is unplugged, so it *helpfully* moves that IP to the secondary NIC, apparently on the assumption that static is always better than DHCP. This is of no use to us, since all it does is move the problem to the other NIC. 2. If you plug both cables in, both interfaces come up configured as you’d expect, but since both configurations provided a gateway address, you still can’t get out to the Internet since the static one came up first, and it’s pointing at an unreachable box. I think all we need to do to fix this is convince NetworkManager not to be clever about moving the static IP to the second NIC. Alas, there is no checkbox in the NM GUI labeled “This is a 4U server, dummy, not a laptop.” Anyone know how to convince NM to obey the MAC binding in the ifcfg-* file, to prevent NM from moving the broken static IP info to the second NIC? Yes, we know we can still disable NetworkManager and edit network-scripts/ifcfg-* directly. We’d just prefer not to fight the OS. Also, unlike EL6, disabling NM on EL7 breaks the network GUI, which we’ve occasionally found helpful, as when we have a semi-clueful tech at the remote site. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager
On 25/08/14 12:38 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: > Em 23-08-2014 19:30, Steve Clark escreveu: >> On 08/22/2014 07:42 PM, Digimer wrote: >>> On 22/08/14 07:07 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Digimer wrote: > To continue your analogy, should car companies have stopped changing > after the 20s? I mean, the cars then got you were you needed to go, right? The point is to abstract an interface so you can make changes behind it without breaking the things already built around it. You can always add things without breaking anything that already worked for your community of users. If you didn't care about that yourself, you'd be recompiling a gentoo weekly instead of being here. >>> To echo John, this is a major release. It's where, when needed, things >>> can change and break backwards compatibility. If a change like this >>> happened as a y-stream release, sure, I'll grab my pitch fork along with >>> you. >>> >>> It's not realistic to expect backwards compatibility to last forever. >>> The sysv init stuff had a good long run, but it was time to change. Now, >>> you're welcome to disagree with me (and the archives are littered >>> already with this argument), but in the end, it changed. A major version >>> was the right place to do it, and now it is done. >>> >>> So this brings me back to my original point... Unless you plan to wage a >>> war against things like Network Manager, systemd or what have you in the >>> faint home of reverting in the next major release, you don't have a lot >>> of viable long term options. >>> >>> Learn the new ways or fade from relevance. >>> >>> I say this without passing judgment on the merits of the new or old >>> ways, simply as a fact of life. Even if you did hold out hope for, say, >>> RHEL 8 to return to the old ways, you will have a hard time avoiding >>> EL7. It will almost certainly be adopted wide-scale and that will >>> provide inertia. >>> >> NetworkManager is the window's world way of doing things for people that >> don't really understand >> what is going on. I see no use for it immediately disable it. But it pains >> me to have to take the time. > > TBH, I also had some pain on learning it, but now that we also have > nmcli (command line tool), I actually feel it's easier than the old > ifcfg- files. It's better script-able than before. > > Marcelo Bingo! Things have to change to improve, and the improve you inevitably take some false starts. Once you get it right though... :) -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager
Em 23-08-2014 19:30, Steve Clark escreveu: > On 08/22/2014 07:42 PM, Digimer wrote: >> On 22/08/14 07:07 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Digimer wrote: To continue your analogy, should car companies have stopped changing after the 20s? I mean, the cars then got you were you needed to go, right? >>> The point is to abstract an interface so you can make changes behind >>> it without breaking the things already built around it. You can >>> always add things without breaking anything that already worked for >>> your community of users. If you didn't care about that yourself, >>> you'd be recompiling a gentoo weekly instead of being here. >> To echo John, this is a major release. It's where, when needed, things >> can change and break backwards compatibility. If a change like this >> happened as a y-stream release, sure, I'll grab my pitch fork along with >> you. >> >> It's not realistic to expect backwards compatibility to last forever. >> The sysv init stuff had a good long run, but it was time to change. Now, >> you're welcome to disagree with me (and the archives are littered >> already with this argument), but in the end, it changed. A major version >> was the right place to do it, and now it is done. >> >> So this brings me back to my original point... Unless you plan to wage a >> war against things like Network Manager, systemd or what have you in the >> faint home of reverting in the next major release, you don't have a lot >> of viable long term options. >> >> Learn the new ways or fade from relevance. >> >> I say this without passing judgment on the merits of the new or old >> ways, simply as a fact of life. Even if you did hold out hope for, say, >> RHEL 8 to return to the old ways, you will have a hard time avoiding >> EL7. It will almost certainly be adopted wide-scale and that will >> provide inertia. >> > NetworkManager is the window's world way of doing things for people that > don't really understand > what is going on. I see no use for it immediately disable it. But it pains me > to have to take the time. TBH, I also had some pain on learning it, but now that we also have nmcli (command line tool), I actually feel it's easier than the old ifcfg- files. It's better script-able than before. Marcelo ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager
On 2014-08-23, Steve Clark wrote: > NetworkManager is the window's world way of doing things for people that > don't really understand > what is going on. I see no use for it immediately disable it. But it pains me > to have to take the time. If you do it often enough, you should probably create a kickstart file, install image (e.g., Docker/KVM), or similar, which already has it disabled. I already do this for my OpenVZ images, which are preconfigured for my desires. And if that's too much work then it's probably not too often that you need to manually disable it. :) --keith -- kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager
On 08/22/2014 07:42 PM, Digimer wrote: > On 22/08/14 07:07 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Digimer wrote: >>> To continue your analogy, should car companies have stopped changing >>> after the 20s? I mean, the cars then got you were you needed to go, right? >> The point is to abstract an interface so you can make changes behind >> it without breaking the things already built around it. You can >> always add things without breaking anything that already worked for >> your community of users. If you didn't care about that yourself, >> you'd be recompiling a gentoo weekly instead of being here. > To echo John, this is a major release. It's where, when needed, things > can change and break backwards compatibility. If a change like this > happened as a y-stream release, sure, I'll grab my pitch fork along with > you. > > It's not realistic to expect backwards compatibility to last forever. > The sysv init stuff had a good long run, but it was time to change. Now, > you're welcome to disagree with me (and the archives are littered > already with this argument), but in the end, it changed. A major version > was the right place to do it, and now it is done. > > So this brings me back to my original point... Unless you plan to wage a > war against things like Network Manager, systemd or what have you in the > faint home of reverting in the next major release, you don't have a lot > of viable long term options. > > Learn the new ways or fade from relevance. > > I say this without passing judgment on the merits of the new or old > ways, simply as a fact of life. Even if you did hold out hope for, say, > RHEL 8 to return to the old ways, you will have a hard time avoiding > EL7. It will almost certainly be adopted wide-scale and that will > provide inertia. > NetworkManager is the window's world way of doing things for people that don't really understand what is going on. I see no use for it immediately disable it. But it pains me to have to take the time. -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager
On 2014-08-23, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > The suggestion you made to switch to commercial system [sorry I brought > your suggestion one step further in the same direction, oh I'm really > tricky person] is quite in line with what commercial vendors would like to > happen to free (as free beer) competitive software: users, feel this free > software is as nasty as our commercial alternative is. I don't think that's precisely the issue. The issue (to me anyway) is that people are complaining about free software *whose explicitly stated goal is to remain as closely as possible to the commercial upstream*. If this were a base distro like Debian or Slackware, then people could legitimately complain that Debian was moving to systemd, because the Debian maintainers made that decision. The CentOS maintainers did not! So it's not really about free vs. nonfree, it's about who the deciders are. Since I mentioned it, Slackware might be a reasonable compromise for those of you who prefer a more ''purist'' (whatever that means) environment but don't want to completely break away from linux. When I was an active Slackware user I heard the comparison that Slackware was the most *BSD-like of the linux distros. --keith -- kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager
On Sat, August 23, 2014 8:42 am, William Woods wrote: > You are whining about something FREE dont like it, dont use it .if you > had a PAID RHEL > sub, upstream to Cent, on then bitch ..but whining about something free, > well Was I that unclear that I sounded like the one who keeps whining? I tried to say that the moment we could affect anything has past a year or two ago. That was the time the systemd introduction into all Linuxes was made. It is done deal now, and the last one of the major distros - debian (and its clones) - goes systemd in next release. So, it is not RH, it is all of them built on Linux kernel... And yes, I did start using something else (FreeBSD) for servers a while ago. Also free. Also open source. Better suited for servers in my book (your mileage may differ ;-) Alas, not all of the decisions that are made in/by open source programmer (steering) teams can be affected by us. They are achieved in the battles, and there are arguments "on our side" that are made then. But. As I said to one of my users: KDE-3 person, who hates KDE-4, stays with KDE-3 while it lasts. Brilliant programmers who create this software need to make progress as _they_ see it. And this (making these fundamental for us changes) often is their only reward for the great programming job they are doing. Let's be grateful to them. And as we know, not all of the changes is really a progress, even if they give you very fast boot as systemd does, or pretend to give you more security as SELinux advertizes in its name. I was displeased by introduction of SELinux into mainstream kernel back then. As, it is not a good defense in a first place (can it be if you can switch it off on the fly? and after that things are as if it is not there). On the other hand it is extra dozens of thousands of lines of code in the kernel, which may have bugs with security implications. Which down the road proved to be true - search for SELinux security patch. Still, even disagreeing with something I kept living with it for quire some time. But one day the time came to switch servers to better (in my book; your mileage may be different ;-) alternative. Oh, yes, I should have mentioned SELinux competitive security solution. it was LIDS (Linux Intrusion Detection System). The name is a bit confusing. In three words: It was sort of kernel patch that after boot demotes root to user nobody. So after boot you can not administer the system at all. On the fly the system is locked. Dead locked. Makes more sense to me (security wise) than SELinux, but SELinux made it into mainstream kernel instead of LIDS... The suggestion you made to switch to commercial system [sorry I brought your suggestion one step further in the same direction, oh I'm really tricky person] is quite in line with what commercial vendors would like to happen to free (as free beer) competitive software: users, feel this free software is as nasty as our commercial alternative is. So you may look at better sides of commercial software, and come back to us. This may be strategic thought behind such events as acquisition of widest used database mysql by most famous database company oracle. Another example may be proving an opposite (I mean cups acquired by Apple, the reason here could be mere survival of cups that Apple is going to keep using themselves). So, for good or for bad, after letting all of our steam out about bad decisions in the system we love or used to love (and I was happy with Linux, - RedHat and CentOS in particular, - for much longer than decade) we can bite the bullet, realize that the life is such, and Linux from now on is such, and start continuing our life with Linux (while the enterprise life cycle lasts ;-) or with alternatives, - those of us who found them more adequate. One way or another whining of all of us who is displeased only serves to let our own steam out. Valeri > > On Aug 23, 2014, at 8:38 AM, Valeri Galtsev > wrote: > >> >> On Sat, August 23, 2014 5:00 am, m...@tdiehl.org wrote: >>> I hate network mangler as much as the next guy but is it really worth >>> all >>> of >>> the whining when all it takes to disable it is: >>> >> >> It would be worth "whining about it" if anybody of decision makers ever >> listened to these complaints. As some day "reverting to old behavior" >> option will be gone. But most likely no one will listen to all our >> "whining", and all the decisions are already made at least a year ago... >> so you probably are 100% right: all our whining serves is just to let >> our >> own steam out. Once we realize it we start looking for alternatives, - >> for >> the servers at least. >> >> Valeri >> >> >> Valeri Galtsev >> Sr System Administrator >> Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics >> Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics >> University of Chicago >> Phone: 773-702-4247 >> >> ___ >> CentOS mailing
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager
You are whining about something FREE…don’t like it, don’t use it….if you had a PAID RHEL sub, upstream to Cent, on then bitch…..but whining about something free, well On Aug 23, 2014, at 8:38 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > On Sat, August 23, 2014 5:00 am, m...@tdiehl.org wrote: >> I hate network mangler as much as the next guy but is it really worth all >> of >> the whining when all it takes to disable it is: >> > > It would be worth "whining about it" if anybody of decision makers ever > listened to these complaints. As some day "reverting to old behavior" > option will be gone. But most likely no one will listen to all our > "whining", and all the decisions are already made at least a year ago... > so you probably are 100% right: all our whining serves is just to let our > own steam out. Once we realize it we start looking for alternatives, - for > the servers at least. > > Valeri > > > Valeri Galtsev > Sr System Administrator > Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics > Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics > University of Chicago > Phone: 773-702-4247 > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager
On Sat, August 23, 2014 5:00 am, m...@tdiehl.org wrote: > I hate network mangler as much as the next guy but is it really worth all > of > the whining when all it takes to disable it is: > It would be worth "whining about it" if anybody of decision makers ever listened to these complaints. As some day "reverting to old behavior" option will be gone. But most likely no one will listen to all our "whining", and all the decisions are already made at least a year ago... so you probably are 100% right: all our whining serves is just to let our own steam out. Once we realize it we start looking for alternatives, - for the servers at least. Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Digimer wrote: > More important with regards to the minimal install set it matches what Red Hat is doing. >>> And most of us *still* don't like it >>> >>> mark >> >> Time is ticking on... The longer you avoid learning what is coming, the >> further behind your peers you will fall. >> > Except that wasting time re-learning a new and strange way to do > something that already worked - or how to disable the new thing so it > doesn't break your working setup - doesn't really put you ahead of > anything. I hate network mangler as much as the next guy but is it really worth all of the whining when all it takes to disable it is: systemctl disable NetworkManager systemctl enable network systemctl stop NetworkManager systemctl start network And now you are back to the old behavior. Red Hat even went to the trouble of documenting it for you at https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/Virtualization_Deployment_and_Administration_Guide/sect-Network_configuration-Bridged_networking_with_libvirt.html Regards, -- Tom m...@tdiehl.org Spamtrap address me...@tdiehl.org ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager
On 2014-08-22, Bernard Lheureux wrote: > I totally agree, Les, I think RH and CentOS are really going the wrong > way since the release of that ugly version 7 !!! You can always start a NoNetworkManager SIG. --keith -- kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager
On 22/08/14 07:07 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Digimer wrote: >>> >> To continue your analogy, should car companies have stopped changing >> after the 20s? I mean, the cars then got you were you needed to go, right? > > The point is to abstract an interface so you can make changes behind > it without breaking the things already built around it. You can > always add things without breaking anything that already worked for > your community of users. If you didn't care about that yourself, > you'd be recompiling a gentoo weekly instead of being here. To echo John, this is a major release. It's where, when needed, things can change and break backwards compatibility. If a change like this happened as a y-stream release, sure, I'll grab my pitch fork along with you. It's not realistic to expect backwards compatibility to last forever. The sysv init stuff had a good long run, but it was time to change. Now, you're welcome to disagree with me (and the archives are littered already with this argument), but in the end, it changed. A major version was the right place to do it, and now it is done. So this brings me back to my original point... Unless you plan to wage a war against things like Network Manager, systemd or what have you in the faint home of reverting in the next major release, you don't have a lot of viable long term options. Learn the new ways or fade from relevance. I say this without passing judgment on the merits of the new or old ways, simply as a fact of life. Even if you did hold out hope for, say, RHEL 8 to return to the old ways, you will have a hard time avoiding EL7. It will almost certainly be adopted wide-scale and that will provide inertia. -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Digimer wrote: > > > To continue your analogy, should car companies have stopped changing > after the 20s? I mean, the cars then got you were you needed to go, right? The point is to abstract an interface so you can make changes behind it without breaking the things already built around it. You can always add things without breaking anything that already worked for your community of users. If you didn't care about that yourself, you'd be recompiling a gentoo weekly instead of being here. > Things change. You are certainly free to deny that and stay on old > releases, but the world *will* move forward, with or without you. Or around in circles... -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager
On 22/08/14 06:39 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:33 PM, John R. Dennison wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 05:24:06PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: >>> Except that wasting time re-learning a new and strange way to do >>> something that already worked - or how to disable the new thing so it >>> doesn't break your working setup - doesn't really put you ahead of >>> anything. >> >> This is a _major_ release. Things change during _major_ releases. >> Luckily you aren't being forced at gunpoint to use it. >> >> Seriously. Your constant complaints against the Red Hat way of doing >> things got old a decade ago. > > It's not so much 'The' Red Hat way of doing things - although SysV > mostly had it right in the first place. But the annoying part is the > number of Red Hat "Ways' that are just arbitrarily different - like a > car company swapping the brake and gas pedal locations for every new > model. I suppose if you sell training courses you have to make a > reason for people to come back. To continue your analogy, should car companies have stopped changing after the 20s? I mean, the cars then got you were you needed to go, right? Things change. You are certainly free to deny that and stay on old releases, but the world *will* move forward, with or without you. -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager
On 8/22/2014 3:39 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > It's not so much 'The' Red Hat way of doing things - although SysV > mostly had it right in the first place. But the annoying part is the > number of Red Hat "Ways' that are just arbitrarily different - like a > car company swapping the brake and gas pedal locations for every new > model. I suppose if you sell training courses you have to make a > reason for people to come back. in the early days of automobiles there was quite a lot of that. ever drive a model T ? -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:33 PM, John R. Dennison wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 05:24:06PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: >> Except that wasting time re-learning a new and strange way to do >> something that already worked - or how to disable the new thing so it >> doesn't break your working setup - doesn't really put you ahead of >> anything. > > This is a _major_ release. Things change during _major_ releases. > Luckily you aren't being forced at gunpoint to use it. > > Seriously. Your constant complaints against the Red Hat way of doing > things got old a decade ago. It's not so much 'The' Red Hat way of doing things - although SysV mostly had it right in the first place. But the annoying part is the number of Red Hat "Ways' that are just arbitrarily different - like a car company swapping the brake and gas pedal locations for every new model. I suppose if you sell training courses you have to make a reason for people to come back. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager
On 08/23/2014 12:24 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: > Except that wasting time re-learning a new and strange way to do > something that already worked - or how to disable the new thing so it > doesn't break your working setup - doesn't really put you ahead of > anything. I totally agree, Les, I think RH and CentOS are really going the wrong way since the release of that ugly version 7 !!! -- (°- Bernard Lheureux relally deceived by Red Hat and CentOS 7 !!! //\ Thinking that the future of some Linux is near to become as ugly v_/_ as Winblows is if they follow the same line with systemd & others ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 05:24:06PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > Except that wasting time re-learning a new and strange way to do > something that already worked - or how to disable the new thing so it > doesn't break your working setup - doesn't really put you ahead of > anything. This is a _major_ release. Things change during _major_ releases. Luckily you aren't being forced at gunpoint to use it. Seriously. Your constant complaints against the Red Hat way of doing things got old a decade ago. John -- There's only one way to have a happy marriage and as soon as I learn what it is I'll get married again. -- Clint Eastwood pgp6qTMBu_bTO.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Digimer wrote: More important with regards to the minimal install set it matches what >>> Red Hat is doing. >>> >> And most of us *still* don't like it >> >> mark > > Time is ticking on... The longer you avoid learning what is coming, the > further behind your peers you will fall. > Except that wasting time re-learning a new and strange way to do something that already worked - or how to disable the new thing so it doesn't break your working setup - doesn't really put you ahead of anything. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager
On 22/08/14 06:13 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > John R. Dennison wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 02:58:29PM -0700, John R Pierce wrote: >>> On 8/22/2014 2:55 PM, Christof Stocker wrote: So I noticed that the minimal installation of CentOS 7 comes - in contrary to minimal CentOS 6.5 - preinstalled with the NetworkManager. I somewhat understand its usefulness, especially for wlan / desktops, and its not like it really bothers me.. That being said, it seems to >>> me with my naive linux understanding that it kinda goes against the definition of a "minimal" installation. Does anyone know why this decision was made / a good idea? >>> >>> network manager is used by default to manage all sorts of connections >>> now, including ethernet with DHCP. >> >> More important with regards to the minimal install set it matches what >> Red Hat is doing. >> > And most of us *still* don't like it > > mark Time is ticking on... The longer you avoid learning what is coming, the further behind your peers you will fall. -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 06:13:56PM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > And most of us *still* don't like it And luckily there is a solution. Don't use CentOS-7. John -- The price we pay for money is paid in liberty. -- Robert Louis Stevenson (1850-1894), novelist, essayist, and poet pgp2Ne3mU3B4n.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager
John R. Dennison wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 02:58:29PM -0700, John R Pierce wrote: >> On 8/22/2014 2:55 PM, Christof Stocker wrote: >> > So I noticed that the minimal installation of CentOS 7 comes - in >> > contrary to minimal CentOS 6.5 - preinstalled with the NetworkManager. >> > >> > I somewhat understand its usefulness, especially for wlan / desktops, >> > and its not like it really bothers me.. That being said, it seems to >> me >> > with my naive linux understanding that it kinda goes against the >> > definition of a "minimal" installation. >> > >> > Does anyone know why this decision was made / a good idea? >> >> network manager is used by default to manage all sorts of connections >> now, including ethernet with DHCP. > > More important with regards to the minimal install set it matches what > Red Hat is doing. > And most of us *still* don't like it mark > > > > John > -- > If there is an embarrassment equivalent of post-traumatic stress disorder, > South Carolina has it. > > -- Dick Harpootlian, former state Democratic chairman, on its recent >politics, New York Times, 12 June 2010 > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 02:58:29PM -0700, John R Pierce wrote: > On 8/22/2014 2:55 PM, Christof Stocker wrote: > > So I noticed that the minimal installation of CentOS 7 comes - in > > contrary to minimal CentOS 6.5 - preinstalled with the NetworkManager. > > > > I somewhat understand its usefulness, especially for wlan / desktops, > > and its not like it really bothers me.. That being said, it seems to me > > with my naive linux understanding that it kinda goes against the > > definition of a "minimal" installation. > > > > Does anyone know why this decision was made / a good idea? > > network manager is used by default to manage all sorts of connections > now, including ethernet with DHCP. More important with regards to the minimal install set it matches what Red Hat is doing. John -- If there is an embarrassment equivalent of post-traumatic stress disorder, South Carolina has it. -- Dick Harpootlian, former state Democratic chairman, on its recent politics, New York Times, 12 June 2010 pgp7TtYMWfIid.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager
On 8/22/2014 2:55 PM, Christof Stocker wrote: > So I noticed that the minimal installation of CentOS 7 comes - in > contrary to minimal CentOS 6.5 - preinstalled with the NetworkManager. > > I somewhat understand its usefulness, especially for wlan / desktops, > and its not like it really bothers me.. That being said, it seems to me > with my naive linux understanding that it kinda goes against the > definition of a "minimal" installation. > > Does anyone know why this decision was made / a good idea? network manager is used by default to manage all sorts of connections now, including ethernet with DHCP. -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] NetworkManager
So I noticed that the minimal installation of CentOS 7 comes - in contrary to minimal CentOS 6.5 - preinstalled with the NetworkManager. I somewhat understand its usefulness, especially for wlan / desktops, and its not like it really bothers me.. That being said, it seems to me with my naive linux understanding that it kinda goes against the definition of a "minimal" installation. Does anyone know why this decision was made / a good idea? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager substitute??
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 07:41:59PM -0400, SilverTip257 wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Nux! wrote: > > > On 28.10.2013 17:52, Fred Smith wrote: > > > I'm investigating how to setup KVM so I can run VMs without having to > > > use > > > VirtualBox or VMware, or etc. > > > > > > All the HOWTOs I see tell you to disable NM. > > > > There is no reason to disable NM entirely. > > But you can disable NM per interface with: > NM_CONTROLLED="no" Yes, so I've learned today. thanks for the tip though. > I've seen it is common practice to disable NM on bridge and other > interfaces at times. > > I expect this excerpt from [0] is why I've seen NM disabled "per interface" > in various write-ups. > And in my case I never needed or wanted NM fiddling with most interfaces on > my headless servers. ;) Sure. makes sense. But I'm hoping to use this on my main (home) desktop machine, so I need to still have desktop-likke services available. > > >- The NM_CONTROLLED=no should be added to the Ethernet interface to >prevent *NetworkManager* from altering the file. It can also be added to >the bridge configuration file in case future versions of > *NetworkManager* support >bridge configuration. > thanks for the info! -- --- Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as the result of an unsolicited e-mail message. Nor will I forward chain letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers of others. This is my contribution to the survival of the online community. --Roger Ebert, December, 1996 - The Boulder Pledge - ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager substitute??
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Nux! wrote: > On 28.10.2013 17:52, Fred Smith wrote: > > I'm investigating how to setup KVM so I can run VMs without having to > > use > > VirtualBox or VMware, or etc. > > > > All the HOWTOs I see tell you to disable NM. > There is no reason to disable NM entirely. But you can disable NM per interface with: NM_CONTROLLED="no" > > > > I use NM to manage VPN clients that I use for remote access to my > > office, > > among other places. > > > > How would I manage those VPN clients if I didn't use NM? I haven't > > found > > any commands that appear to be suited to that purpose. > > > > thanks! > > Hi, > > KVM/libvirt works just fine with NM enabled here. Never had a problem. > I've seen it is common practice to disable NM on bridge and other interfaces at times. I expect this excerpt from [0] is why I've seen NM disabled "per interface" in various write-ups. And in my case I never needed or wanted NM fiddling with most interfaces on my headless servers. ;) - The NM_CONTROLLED=no should be added to the Ethernet interface to prevent *NetworkManager* from altering the file. It can also be added to the bridge configuration file in case future versions of *NetworkManager* support bridge configuration. [0] https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Deployment_Guide/s2-networkscripts-interfaces_network-bridge.html > Just "yum install qemu-kvm libvirt virt-manager", start libvirtd and > fire-up virt-manager, you're set! > > HTH > Lucian > > -- > Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > > Nux! > www.nux.ro > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -- ---~~.~~--- Mike // SilverTip257 // ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager substitute??
On 28.10.2013 18:23, Fred Smith wrote: > thanks, I'll go take a look. As far as I can tell from all the > aforementioned HOWTOs, bridged is the way to do it?? none of 'em > says anything about doing it any other way. what am I overlooking > in my ignorance? If all you want is just to have a local VM and no special requirements, libvirt provides you with a virtual bridge (virbr0) that is NAT-ed to your public uplink. All VMs are by default connected to this virtual bridge, unless you specify otherwise and given an IP from the 192.168.122.0/24 range; your host machine will be 192.168.122.1. All of the above happens autmagically once you start libvirtd. If you want to have the VM on the same public network as the host then indeed you need to configure a bridge manully and connect both your public interface (eth0) and your virtual machine's interface (vnetX) to it. HTH -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NetworkManager substitute??
On 10/28/2013 11:23 AM, Fred Smith wrote: > thanks, I'll go take a look. As far as I can tell from all the > aforementioned HOWTOs, bridged is the way to do it?? none of 'em > says anything about doing it any other way. what am I overlooking > in my ignorance? bridged is appropriate if you want to see your VM's virtual NIC's appear on your local network such that the VM's get their own IP addresses that are reachable by other LAN hosts. -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
