On Thursday, June 20, 2013 02:38:37 PM Colin Walters wrote:
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 13:15 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
I think most traditional system admins see a running NM daemon as an
additional point of failure in a static network. If my server's network
setup is static, I don't want a
On Monday, June 24, 2013 11:15:11 AM Glen Turner wrote:
...
What we don't want is a scenario where configuring these protocols on
servers has to be done by network engineers. We want them configured from
a GUI and supervised by a master daemon. Let's call that NetworkManager.
Suggestion: rip
On Sat, 2013-06-22 at 17:07 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:09:57PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
On the other hand, having NetworkManager available all the time enables
things like management tools to use its API to query system status,
instead of guessing it from
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:15:11AM +0930, Glen Turner wrote:
On 22/06/2013, at 7:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
(2) Write a shell script that contains the ifconfig/route add (or ip ...)
commands they need and have it run at boot. Most simple static
network configs are 2 or 3
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:15:11AM +0930, Glen Turner wrote:
Sun's tagline of the network is the computer was true. But for servers
these days the computer is the network is also the case. It's nothing
for a server today to statically NAT or bridge IPv4 to VMs. Even in that
case it's best if
Once upon a time, Glen Turner g...@gdt.id.au said:
What we don't want is a scenario where configuring these protocols on servers
has to be done by network engineers. We want them configured from a GUI and
supervised by a master daemon. Let's call that NetworkManager.
You think hundreds of
* Chris Adams [24/06/2013 06:30] :
You think hundreds of servers (with untold numbers of VMs), or any
complicated networking setups, are going to each have their network
configuration managed by a GUI?
I believe Glen meant that in the sense an admin is running a GUI app
on his workstation and
Le Lun 24 juin 2013 13:08, Matthew Miller a écrit :
So, the converse is that as actual workloads move to VMs (let alone
cloud),
the host systems become a special case, and the normal case for a server
tends to become much more simple: either a single interface probably with
fixed-address
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 01:22:03PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
yes, and all these setups are more than satisfied with network.service
and do not need more complexity with a running daemon like NM
If you'd be interested in packaging and maintaining a network.service that
handles static
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 01:41:16PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
So, the converse is that as actual workloads move to VMs (let alone
cloud), the host systems become a special case, and the normal case
for a server tends to become much more simple: either a single interface
probably with
Le Lun 24 juin 2013 14:40, Matthew Miller a écrit :
I'm not sure it's the same reasoning because I have no idea how what I
said relates to replacing the BIOS wiith ESXi, but it's certainly the case
that VMware has been hugely successful. And part of that success is
because
addressing the
Am 24.06.2013 13:08, schrieb Matthew Miller:
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:15:11AM +0930, Glen Turner wrote:
Sun's tagline of the network is the computer was true. But for servers
these days the computer is the network is also the case. It's nothing
for a server today to statically NAT or
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 04:05:35PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
The situation I described above is a feature, not a side-effect.
It's a feature for the cloud infra provider. It's an antifeature for
everyone else. There is value in providing more features infra-side. There
is no value in
On 24/06/2013, at 9:00 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Glen Turner said:
What we don't want is a scenario where configuring these protocols on
servers has to be done by network engineers. We want them configured from a
GUI and supervised by a master daemon. Let's call that
On 21/06/2013, at 4:28 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
It's supported that for 4 or 5 years. You don't need aliases at all,
Consider an anycast service where the alias interface reflects the availability
of the service on the server. An OSPF or BGP daemon then advertises the address
of the alias
On 21/06/2013, at 10:31 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Current network information is available from the kernel and doesn't
require guessing. Why would you code something to talk to some random
daemon API (that may change) when you could talk directly to the source
via the kernel netlink API?
The
On 22/06/2013, at 7:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
(2) Write a shell script that contains the ifconfig/route add (or ip ...)
commands they need and have it run at boot. Most simple static
network configs are 2 or 3 commands at most.
If you have a server in the tradition of UNIX
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 01:15:37PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com said:
Mind if I ask why you think this way about NetworkManager? The NM
currently shipping in Fedora 19 has full support for managing static
NICs, as well as bonding,
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:09:57PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
On the other hand, having NetworkManager available all the time enables
things like management tools to use its API to query system status,
instead of guessing it from kernel information and heuristic analysis of
some files
On 06/20/2013 09:13 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
nmcli doesn't work unless NM is running, since it talks to NM to do
stuff, so it would be incompatible with NM setting things up and
quitting.
It could spawn NetworkManager as a subprocess and use the peer-to-peer
D-Bus protocol to talk to it. I
On 06/20/2013 08:01 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Mind if I ask why you think this way about NetworkManager? The NM
currently shipping in Fedora 19 has full support for managing static
NICs, as well as bonding, bridging and VLAN support for enterprise
use-cases.
NetworkManager has historically
Once upon a time, Florian Weimer fwei...@redhat.com said:
On the other hand, having NetworkManager available all the time
enables things like management tools to use its API to query system
status, instead of guessing it from kernel information and heuristic
analysis of some files under /etc.
On 06/21/2013 03:01 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Florian Weimer fwei...@redhat.com said:
On the other hand, having NetworkManager available all the time
enables things like management tools to use its API to query system
status, instead of guessing it from kernel information and
Once upon a time, Florian Weimer fwei...@redhat.com said:
The kernel does not know anything about interfaces which do not
exist, possibly lacks information about interfaces which are not up,
and has no concept whatsoever of DNS, DHCP (at least after boot) or
OpenVPN or settings.
The idea of
Pavel Simerda (psime...@redhat.com) said:
From: Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net
I prefer the modern secondaries vs. the old-style eth0:123, although I
have run into vendor software (such as the Plesk web hosting control
panel) that can't handle it. I expect if that was the one true way in
On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 13:42 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 06/20/2013 08:01 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Mind if I ask why you think this way about NetworkManager? The NM
currently shipping in Fedora 19 has full support for managing static
NICs, as well as bonding, bridging and VLAN
On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 13:17 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 06/20/2013 09:13 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
nmcli doesn't work unless NM is running, since it talks to NM to do
stuff, so it would be incompatible with NM setting things up and
quitting.
It could spawn NetworkManager as a
As it may be interesting and I have the data on hand, here's the package
diff between a minimal install of F16 and a minimal install of F19. F16
has 203 packages (I think it's really 202 but I somehow got an extra one
into my test), F19 TC6 has 238.
--- 16min.txt 2013-06-19 09:06:52.075305098
On 06/20/2013 09:21 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
As it may be interesting and I have the data on hand, here's the package
diff between a minimal install of F16 and a minimal install of F19. F16
has 203 packages (I think it's really 202 but I somehow got an extra one
into my test), F19 TC6 has
Le 20/06/2013 11:52, Harald Hoyer a écrit :
$ rpm -q --whatrequires json-c
no package requires json-c
Probably should try
$ rpm -q --whatrequires \
libjson.so.0()(64bit) \
libjson-c.so.2()(64bit)
= pulseaudio, abrt, libreport, ...
Remi.
--
devel mailing list
On 06/20/2013 11:59 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
Le 20/06/2013 11:52, Harald Hoyer a écrit :
$ rpm -q --whatrequires json-c
no package requires json-c
Probably should try
$ rpm -q --whatrequires \
libjson.so.0()(64bit) \
libjson-c.so.2()(64bit)
= pulseaudio, abrt, libreport, ...
On 06/20/2013 11:59 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
Le 20/06/2013 11:52, Harald Hoyer a écrit :
$ rpm -q --whatrequires json-c
no package requires json-c
Probably should try
$ rpm -q --whatrequires \
libjson.so.0()(64bit) \
libjson-c.so.2()(64bit)
= pulseaudio, abrt, libreport, ...
Le 20/06/2013 12:18, Harald Hoyer a écrit :
On 06/20/2013 11:59 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
Le 20/06/2013 11:52, Harald Hoyer a écrit :
$ rpm -q --whatrequires json-c
no package requires json-c
Probably should try
$ rpm -q --whatrequires \
libjson.so.0()(64bit) \
libjson-c.so.2()(64bit)
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:52:54AM +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
And why is NetworkManager and firewalld in the minimal install?
We are on track to replace the legacy network and firewall init scripts
with these. It's a slow track, but that's the direction.
Overall, I'm in favor of having a single
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 05:08:48PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
We are on track to replace the legacy network and firewall init scripts
with these. It's a slow track, but that's the direction
*do not* remove iptables.service for a lot od reason explained
often enough as well as NM is utterly
Am 20.06.2013 17:01, schrieb Matthew Miller:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:52:54AM +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
And why is NetworkManager and firewalld in the minimal install?
We are on track to replace the legacy network and firewall init scripts
with these. It's a slow track, but that's the
On 06/20/2013 10:37 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Well, like I just said, it's a slow track. I certainly am vigorously opposed
to removing it before the replacement has the same functionality and
reliability.
... and resource usage. Having Python fully loaded for a firewall isn't
my first choice.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/20/2013 11:08 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 20.06.2013 17:01, schrieb Matthew Miller:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:52:54AM +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
And why is NetworkManager and firewalld in the minimal
install?
We are on track to
Does NM in F19 support statically assigning multiple subnets to the
same physical interface, WITHOUT using VLANs? I often need that on
server machines, and wasn't able to figure out any way to do it with
NM on F17, but I haven't yet tried it on F19.
With the old-style network configuration, it
Once upon a time, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com said:
Mind if I ask why you think this way about NetworkManager? The NM
currently shipping in Fedora 19 has full support for managing static
NICs, as well as bonding, bridging and VLAN support for enterprise
use-cases.
I think most
Once upon a time, Eric Smith brouh...@fedoraproject.org said:
Does NM in F19 support statically assigning multiple subnets to the
same physical interface, WITHOUT using VLANs? I often need that on
server machines, and wasn't able to figure out any way to do it with
NM on F17, but I haven't
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:13:54PM -0600, Eric Smith wrote:
Does NM in F19 support statically assigning multiple subnets to the
same physical interface, WITHOUT using VLANs? I often need that on
server machines, and wasn't able to figure out any way to do it with
NM on F17, but I haven't yet
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 13:15 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
I think most traditional system admins see a running NM daemon as an
additional point of failure in a static network. If my server's network
setup is static, I don't want a daemon running attempting to manage
it. If it has a bug, gets
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 12:13 -0600, Eric Smith wrote:
Does NM in F19 support statically assigning multiple subnets to the
same physical interface, WITHOUT using VLANs?
Yes. You can easily do this in the GNOME Control center, just try it.
Click Manual, and then the + will allow adding multiple
Chris Adams (li...@cmadams.net) said:
Once upon a time, Eric Smith brouh...@fedoraproject.org said:
Does NM in F19 support statically assigning multiple subnets to the
same physical interface, WITHOUT using VLANs? I often need that on
server machines, and wasn't able to figure out any way
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 01:15:37PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Mind if I ask why you think this way about NetworkManager? The NM
currently shipping in Fedora 19 has full support for managing static
NICs, as well as bonding, bridging and VLAN support for enterprise
use-cases.
I think most
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 12:13 -0600, Eric Smith wrote:
Does NM in F19 support statically assigning multiple subnets to the
same physical interface, WITHOUT using VLANs? I often need that on
server machines, and wasn't able to figure out any way to do it with
NM on F17, but I haven't yet tried
Once upon a time, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com said:
No, it does not support that at this time. Also note that (if I'm
remembering right) NM adds all aliases as secondary IP addresses, not as
':x' style additional devices.
I prefer the modern secondaries vs. the old-style eth0:123,
Once upon a time, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org said:
Hence, the RFE -- a mode which sets up the above, and then goes away.
I had not seen that mode (or a request for it). That would be nice. In
a perfect world (hah!), replacing ifup and ifdown with scripts that
just make the
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 13:59 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com said:
No, it does not support that at this time. Also note that (if I'm
remembering right) NM adds all aliases as secondary IP addresses, not as
':x' style additional devices.
I
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 14:06 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org said:
Hence, the RFE -- a mode which sets up the above, and then goes away.
I had not seen that mode (or a request for it). That would be nice. In
a perfect world (hah!),
From: Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net
I prefer the modern secondaries vs. the old-style eth0:123, although I
have run into vendor software (such as the Plesk web hosting control
panel) that can't handle it. I expect if that was the one true way in
some future version of RHEL, they'd adapt.
Am 20.06.2013 20:01, schrieb Stephen Gallagher:
*do not* remove iptables.service for a lot od reason explained
often enough as well as NM is utterly useless on servers and
workstations with several *static* configured NIC's
Mind if I ask why you think this way about NetworkManager? The
Am 20.06.2013 17:37, schrieb Matthew Miller:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 05:08:48PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
We are on track to replace the legacy network and firewall init scripts
with these. It's a slow track, but that's the direction
*do not* remove iptables.service for a lot od reason
Am 20.06.2013 20:55, schrieb Matthew Miller:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 01:15:37PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Mind if I ask why you think this way about NetworkManager? The NM
currently shipping in Fedora 19 has full support for managing static
NICs, as well as bonding, bridging and VLAN support
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 21:59:16 +0200
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
because i do *not* need it?
becuase i maintain around 30 fedora machines
because they are all wroking perfect
Thats great that that is your use case.
Keep in mind that this list is talking about development of
Am 20.06.2013 22:14, schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 21:59:16 +0200
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
because i do *not* need it?
becuase i maintain around 30 fedora machines
because they are all wroking perfect
Thats great that that is your use case.
Keep in mind
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 14:06 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org said:
Hence, the RFE -- a mode which sets up the above, and then goes away.
I had not seen that mode (or a request for it).
Matthew's post about it was precisely what kicked off
Once upon a time, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com said:
Matthew's post about it was precisely what kicked off this sub-thread. I
wonder if there is a theorem covering the topic of the minimum number of
messages required in a thread before one is posted which is clearly
unaware of the first
59 matches
Mail list logo
