Re: NM and IETF MIF working group

On 28.09.2015 13:11, Xen wrote: > Just want to say that I have been trying (in OpenSUSE) to get a rather > simple scenario working, but failed, probably due to kernel mechanics: > > - main connection receives all traffic destined for port 80, 443. > - VPN receives all else. > > I just consider it

Re: How to configure a DHCP + (2nd) Static address (eg on eth0+eth0:0)?

On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 15:28 -0400, Derek Atkins wrote: > Dan, > > On Wed, September 30, 2015 12:44 pm, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 12:25 -0400, Derek Atkins wrote: > >> Dan, > >> > >> Dan Williams writes: > >> > >> I.e., just to make sure I understand

Re: NM and IETF MIF working group

On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 22:29 +0200, Stjepan Groš wrote: > On 28.09.2015 11:48, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-09-07 at 12:05 +0200, Stjepan Groš wrote: > >> Two colleagues of mine and I started to work on MIF implementation on > >> Fedora. In case someone doesn't know, IETF MIF working

Re: NM and IETF MIF working group

On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 12:44 +0200, Stjepan Groš wrote: > Hi Lubomir, > > after some time I'm sending followup on this. I would like to flesh out > and discuss our ideas before we start implementing them to be certain > that they will be useful for NetworkManager users. > > On 07.09.2015 18:10,

Re: NM and IETF MIF working group

> On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 22:29 +0200, Stjepan Groš wrote: >> On 28.09.2015 11:48, David Woodhouse wrote: >> > On Mon, 2015-09-07 at 12:05 +0200, Stjepan Groš wrote: >> >> Two colleagues of mine and I started to work on MIF implementation on >> >> Fedora. In case someone doesn't know, IETF MIF

Re: NM and IETF MIF working group

On 01.10.2015 19:02, Dan Williams wrote: > On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 12:44 +0200, Stjepan Groš wrote: >> Hi Lubomir, >> >> after some time I'm sending followup on this. I would like to flesh out >> and discuss our ideas before we start implementing them to be certain >> that they will be useful for

Re: NM and IETF MIF working group

> On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 22:29 +0200, Stjepan Groš wrote: >> On 28.09.2015 11:48, David Woodhouse wrote: >> > On Mon, 2015-09-07 at 12:05 +0200, Stjepan Groš wrote: >> >> Two colleagues of mine and I started to work on MIF implementation on >> >> Fedora. In case someone doesn't know, IETF MIF

Re: How to configure a DHCP + (2nd) Static address (eg on eth0+eth0:0)?

On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 13:34 -0400, Derek Atkins wrote: > Hi Dan, > > On Thu, October 1, 2015 12:49 pm, Dan Williams wrote: > > > Yes, you need a matching ifcfg file for the base interface. So you need > > both ifcfg-eth0 and ifcfg-eth0:0. See the examples, eg ifcfg-aliasem0 > > and

Re: How to configure a DHCP + (2nd) Static address (eg on eth0+eth0:0)?

Hi Dan, On Thu, October 1, 2015 12:49 pm, Dan Williams wrote: > Yes, you need a matching ifcfg file for the base interface. So you need > both ifcfg-eth0 and ifcfg-eth0:0. See the examples, eg ifcfg-aliasem0 > and ifcfg-aliasem0:1. > > The alias file should only have DEVICE and IPADDR fields;

Re: How to configure a DHCP + (2nd) Static address (eg on eth0+eth0:0)?

Hi, On Thu, October 1, 2015 2:51 pm, Dan Williams wrote: > On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 13:34 -0400, Derek Atkins wrote: >> Hi Dan, >> >> On Thu, October 1, 2015 12:49 pm, Dan Williams wrote: >> >> Apparently this still isn't working. I did the following: >> >> # cat

Re: How to configure a DHCP + (2nd) Static address (eg on eth0+eth0:0)?

Hi, Upgrading to NM 1.0.6 seems to have fixed the issue. Sorry for the noise. I suppose I should have checked to make sure I was at the current version first. -derek On Thu, October 1, 2015 3:30 pm, Derek Atkins wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, October 1, 2015 2:51 pm, Dan Williams wrote: >> On Thu,