David Zeuthen wrote:
Ideally, I'd like to see a plug-in based solution (both back-ends and
front-ends), much like the VPN stuff we're doing now, leaving
NetworkManager proper as a core that controls these plug-ins and deals
with core stuff such as dhcp, named etc. Yes, this means wired and
wireless networking would be plug-ins as well. Things would probably
need to be layered too. I would start by considering the UI we need and
the use that to design the API interfaces.
Related thought I had a while back (but hadn't gotten around to having a better
look at due to current time constriants), was that currently we have a fairly
hard-coded approach to what link is "better". I'm fairly sure it's still set to
"if we've got a wired link that supports carrier detect and it's alive, pick
that over *anything* else".
I had some thoughts regarding a better classification scheme for links, which
becomes even more important if we start supporting lots of things. In order of
worst->best:
1) Link does not support minimum features we need (e.g. wireless scan/link
detect)
2) Link supports features, but we can't see any connections (e.g. scan returns 0
APs/link detect is down)
3) Link supports features, has a possible connection but is restricted. e.g. you
need to login somewhere (VPN for example) before you've got full access, or
maybe it's just a walled garden somewhere.
4) Link has basic features, has a possible connection, and appears unrestricted.
*Then* we start to sort on connection speed...
Overriding by user UI can jump from 1->3 (and possibly 4, but probably not).
Also, a wireless connection with multiple APs should be considered as a group of
connections, one per detected/known AP. They have the same basic features, but
some may be in group 3 and others in 4.
How do we detect restrictions? Well, there's a couple of easy ways that might
work e.g. attempt to resolve something.invalid. RFC 2606 guarantees that
*.invalid will always be non-lookable, which might work for walled garden
"everything points to one server" DNS. Or, check a couple of known sane lookups.
If both gnome.org and microsoft.com resolve to the same address, then either the
apocalypse has come or you're in a walled garden. I guess there are a few other
tests that people could think of...
This looks like a better choice scheme to me than the current one, and more
flexible for new protocols.
Tom
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://tevp.net
Illegitimus non carborundum
_______________________________________________
NetworkManager-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
