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".
Suggestio
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 wa
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
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 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 i
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 NA
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
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
> > probabl
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 addressi
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-addr
* 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
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 "NetworkManager".
You think hundreds of servers (wit
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 be
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
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 workst
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
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 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
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 01:15:37PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Stephen Gallagher 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 su
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 s
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
Pavel Simerda (psime...@redhat.com) said:
> > From: "Chris Adams"
> > 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
> >
Once upon a time, Florian Weimer 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 NM being able to
On 06/21/2013 03:01 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Florian Weimer 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
Once upon a time, Florian Weimer 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.
Current networ
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 be
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 thi
Once upon a time, Adam Williamson 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 one. =)
D'oh!
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 14:06 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Matthew Miller 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 this sub-thread. I
Am 20.06.2013 22:14, schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 21:59:16 +0200
> Reindl Harald 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
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 21:59:16 +0200
Reindl Harald 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 Fedora for
ALL the peo
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 VLA
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
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 NetworkMana
> From: "Chris Adams"
> 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.
AFAIK wit
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 14:06 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Matthew Miller 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 "ifd
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 13:59 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Bill Nottingham 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 "m
Once upon a time, Matthew Miller 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 appropriate "nmcli" (or wha
Once upon a time, Bill Nottingham 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, although I
have run
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 trie
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
Chris Adams (li...@cmadams.net) said:
> Once upon a time, Eric Smith 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
> > N
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 multi
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,
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 y
Once upon a time, Eric Smith 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 yet tried it on F19.
Als
Once upon a time, Stephen Gallagher 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 "traditional" system
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 wa
-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
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
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'
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 u
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 sing
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)" \
>> "li
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, libr
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, libr
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
devel@lists.fedorapro
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
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 -0
59 matches
Mail list logo
