On Thu, 07.11.13 01:45, Tom Gundersen (t...@jklm.no) wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Holger Winkelmann [TP] > <h...@travelping.com> wrote: > > We really like to see this direct, how ever would it not better to join > > efforts for network management. I.e. arch Linux claims with netctl [1] > > to do network management "the systems way. and there are a few other > > attempts to do network managent. I.e. netconfd [2] of openWRT is doing > > network management (kind of monolitic) as a daemon as well which can > > be configured via Bus RPC. (OK ubus in this case). Not to mention > > the desktop centric network manager. > > We have looked at and discussed various alternatives, in particular > with the connman guys. However, none of the existing solutions seem > amendable to what we want for the server/initrd, some are too > simplistic and e.g. does not really allow for handling the global > state that we will need, or compartmentalizes too much the different > protocols/state machines, whilst others simply have a different focus > (see Marcel's email in this thread as to why connman's focus is > different from networkd's and why it makes sense to keep them > separate).
To clarify this: systemd-networkd is supposed to cover the initrd, container, server and (some) embedded usecases. However, use NM or connman for the "interactive" stuff (like wlans and suchlike) you need on laptops/desktops and mobile. The idea is that this can work jointly with NM/connman in some ways or another. For example you can make use of .link files even with interfaces that otherwise are handled by connman/NM, but for IP config you have to chose one. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
