> On 4 Mar 2016, at 15:03, Thomas Haller <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 2016-03-04 at 15:57 +0100, Thomas Haller wrote:
>> On Fri, 2016-03-04 at 11:15 +0000, Tim Coote wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 4 Mar 2016, at 10:40, Thomas Haller <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 2016-03-04 at 10:19 +0000, Tim Coote wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hullo
>>>>> 
>>>>> I’m starting to migrate my fedora stock to NetworkManager. In
>>>>> one
>>>>> particular test scenario, I tried to create a direct copy of
>>>>> the
>>>>> final machine configuration using NM and the old "systemctl
>>>>> start
>>>>> network” approach. The VMs are temporally separated (ie I spin
>>>>> up
>>>>> the
>>>>> old one save interrogation results about configuration; kill it
>>>>> and
>>>>> repeat with the new one).  The only differences between the two
>>>>> machines should be the hostnames (so that the puppet
>>>>> configuration
>>>>> knows them as different machines) and the mac addresses.
>>>>> 
>>>>> One inconsistency that I’ve found is that the NetworkManager
>>>>> cannot
>>>>> seem to spin up a tunnel unless the ipv4 addresses differ
>>>>> between
>>>>> the
>>>>> VMs. For the NM controlled VM, pulling apart the actual command
>>>>> run,
>>>>> I see:
>>>>> [code]
>>>>> nmcli con up uuid 4a341ad1-3e31-7ee8-82ee-2019bf995ad8
>>>>> <response>
>>>>> Error: Connection activation failed: No suitable device found
>>>>> for
>>>>> this connection.
>>>>> [/code]
>>>>> 
>>>>> where the uuid represents the sit1 device. However, on the same
>>>>> VM
>>>>> (either directly invoked or by turning off NM and running ifup
>>>>> sit1):
>>>>> [code]
>>>>> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-sit sit1
>>>>> [/code]
>>>>> 
>>>>> spins up the tunnel.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If I put the ‘copy’ VM on different IP address(es). NM seems
>>>>> happy to
>>>>> spin up the tunnel. Note that in both cases there are no
>>>>> conflicting
>>>>> computers/ip addresses on the network at the same time.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Am I (probabably) seeing the intended behaviour for NM - in
>>>>> which
>>>>> case I need to modify my testing approach - or do I need to dig
>>>>> further to confirm a bug?
>>>>> 
>>>>> tia
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> which version of NetworkManager?
>>>> 
>>>> what gives
>>>>   nmcli connection show 4a341ad1-3e31-7ee8-82ee-2019bf995ad8
>>>> and how does the corresponding ifcfg-file look?
>>>>   cat /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-*
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Thomas
>> 
>> Hi Tim,
>> 
>> 
>> Side note: usually it's better to answer with "reply-all", because
>> then
>> the mailing list might help you.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Sorry. I wasn’t intending to get into debugging my setup, more
>>> trying
>>> to understand what the design should do.
>>> 
>>> in any case:
>>> 
>>> NetworkManager-1.0.6-6.fc23.x86_64  (stock f23)
>> Note that this is not the most recent version on f23. Ithould be
>> 1.0.10.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> the nmcli connection … was gleaned from running sh -x usr/sbin/ifup
>>> sit1.   /usr/sbin/ifup comes from initscripts-9.64-1.fc23.x86_64
>>> 
>>> nb. these are the versions of the files that work. To break the
>>> configuration I change the IP addresses from 172.17.1.9 to
>>> 172.17.1.10 and from 192.168.31.61 to 192.168.31.60 throughout.
>>> 
>>> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0
>>> # Broadcom Corporation NetXtreme BCM5751M Gigabit Ethernet PCI
>>> Express
>>> DEVICE=eth0
>>> # temp static to avoid dhcp allcotion pluto as default router
>>> BOOTPROTO=none
>>> IPADDR=172.17.1.9
>>> NETMASK=255.255.0.0
>>> #HWADDR=00:15:58:09:b2:ec
>>> #needs to override dhcp, dhcp still used to ensure ip address not
>>> lost - fixme!!
>>> GATEWAY=192.168.31.100
>>> ONBOOT=yes
>>> NM_CONTROLLED=no
>>> TYPE=Ethernet
>>> USERCTL=no
>>> # not using 6to4, but a dedicated tunnel. seems to work with this
>>> in,
>>> but generates warnings IPV6TO4INIT=yes
>>> IPV6INIT=yes
>>> IPV6ADDR_SECONDARIES="2001:470:zzzz::1/64"
>>> # unclear on value/necessity. I think it's for varying tunnels, so
>>> probably not essential
>>> IPV6_CONTROL_RADVD=yes
>>> PREFIX=16
>>> 
>>> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0:1
>>> # Please read /usr/share/doc/initscripts-*/sysconfig.txt
>>> # for the documentation of these parameters.
>>> GATEWAY=192.168.31.100
>>> DNS1=172.17.31.77
>>> DEVICE=eth0:1
>>> BOOTPROTO=none
>>> NETMASK=255.255.255.0
>>> TYPE=Ethernet
>>> IPADDR=192.168.31.61
>>> IPV6INIT=yes
>>> USERCTL=no
>>> ONPARENT=yes
>>> NM_CONTROLLED=no
>>> PREFIX=24
>>> 
>>> 
>>> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-lo
>>> DEVICE=lo
>>> IPADDR=127.0.0.1
>>> NETMASK=255.0.0.0
>>> NETWORK=127.0.0.0
>>> # If you're having problems with gated making 127.0.0.0/8 a
>>> martian,
>>> # you can change this to something else (255.255.255.255, for
>>> example)
>>> BROADCAST=127.255.255.255
>>> ONBOOT=yes
>>> NAME=loopback
>>> 
>>> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-sit1
>>> DEVICE=sit1
>>> BOOTPROTO=none
>>> ONBOOT=yes
>>> IPV6INIT=yes
>>> IPV6TUNNELIPV4=aaa.bbb.ccc.dddd
>>> IPV6TUNNELIPV4LOCAL=172.17.1.9
>>> IPV6ADDR=2001:470:xxxx:yyyy::2/64
>> 
>> 
>> So for me to understand:
>> 
>> you used to call `ifup sit1` with initscripts alone, and it worked.
>> Since enabling NetworkManager, `ifup sit1` ends up calling `nmcli
>> connection up uuid 4a341ad1-3e31-7ee8-82ee-2019bf995ad8`, which now
>> fails?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> When using initscripts with NetworkManager enabled, initscripts/ifup
>> ask NetworkManager whether NM wants to handle a certain ifcfg file.
>> If
>> NM says yes, a ifup call results in `nmcli connection up`.
>> 
>> 
>> Can you show what NM thinks how 4a341ad1 looks like?
>> 
>>   $ nmcli connection show 4a341ad1-3e31-7ee8-82ee-2019bf995ad8 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> NetworkManager 1.0 and earlier don't support creation of sit
>> tunnels. 
>> Only 1.2 does. NM should say that it doesn't know how to handle
>> "/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-sit1" and leave it to
>> initscripts
>> to up the sit connection.
> 
> 
> NM thinks that your sit1 file is an "ethernet", not a sit-tunnel.
> You have to put NM_CONTROLLED=no there.
> 
> 
> Thomas

Thanks, Thomas. That solved it. And it looks to me like my initial tests were 
wrong as I could not reproduce my initial success model. Looks like I’m hardly 
using NM at all.

_______________________________________________
networkmanager-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list

Reply via email to