It seems to me this proposal is just a *tad* too ambitious.
I haven't followed the entirety of all threads about this topic (has
anyone?) but it seems to me we're proposing to do two major changes at
once:
1. replace ifupdown with systemd-networkd
2. unify configuration of networkd and NetworkM
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 12:27:13PM +0200, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
> So on desktop installations including NetworkManager, netplan will be
> configured to do nothing? Why install netplan at all on desktop systems
> then?
> And if it does manage some interfaces, it is probably a regression to
> break GUI ne
Hi Steve,
On Fri, 2024-09-27 at 11:01 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 12:27:13PM +0200, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
> > So on desktop installations including NetworkManager, netplan will be
> > configured to do nothing? Why install netplan at all on desktop systems
> > then?
>
> > And
Hi,
On Tue, 2024-09-24 at 15:34 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
> My ideas was not so much about switching from one networking daemon to
> another.
> In most cases users will probably stick to the network stack of their chosen
> environment. With systemd-networkd and NetworkManager being good candida
Am 27.09.2024 08:31 schrieb Christian Kastner :On 2024-09-23 13:09, Lukas Märdian wrote:
>> So on desktop installations including NetworkManager, netplan will be
>> configured to do nothing? Why install netplan at all on desktop systems
>> then?
>
> Because it allows to add configuration in a
On 2024-09-23 13:09, Lukas Märdian wrote:
>> So on desktop installations including NetworkManager, netplan will be
>> configured to do nothing? Why install netplan at all on desktop systems
>> then?
>
> Because it allows to add configuration in a way that is common with
> server, cloud
> and other
On 23.09.24 13:33, Richard Lewis wrote:
Lukas Märdian writes:
On 23.09.24 12:27, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
On Mon, 2024-09-23 at 12:22 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
On 22.09.24 15:58, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
On Fri, 2024-09-20 at 13:12 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
The benefit that Netplan would provide in suc
Hi,
On 9/22/24 19:22, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
The "server" group supposedly wants (and I agree) networkd, but they also want
the configuration interface of networkd.
I'm not sure about that -- I'd expect the "server" group to be split into
- "pets": their IP address doesn't change often
On mån, 2024/09/23 at 10:57:22 +0200, Daniel Gröber wrote:
> Hi Sirius,
>
> Thanks for taking ifupdown-ng for a spin.
No problem at all. Thank you for being patient for my response, I have
been working out some kinks around finit to get the system spitting out a
graphical session. :-D
> On Mon,
Chris Hofstaedtler wrote on 23/09/2024 at 12:25:15+0200:
> * Pierre-Elliott Bécue [240923 11:34]:
>> Lukas Märdian wrote on 20/09/2024 at 13:12:36+0200:
>> > # Why
>> > The ifupdown package is a Debian only solution that is becoming a
>> > maintenance
>> > burden. We've had plenty of discussio
On 9/23/24 13:04, Lukas Märdian wrote:
> It's sad to see that fellow DDs do not seem to care
It's sad to see that in this and the other thread before, the same weak
arguments in favour of netplan are repeated by you without neither
adressing the valid points raised against it, nor providing an act
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 05:48:53PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > > > I like ifupdown. It's simple and just works.
> > >
> > > I find this quite funny, given a recent discussion about IPv6 dad
> > > issues with ifupdown on #debian-admin.
> >
> > The "discussion" was about ifup@eth0 being in a fai
On 23.09.24 13:39, Daniel Gröber wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 12:25:15PM +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
* Pierre-Elliott Bécue [240923 11:34]:
I like ifupdown. It's simple and just works.
I find this quite funny, given a recent discussion about IPv6 dad
issues with ifupdown on #debian-ad
Le lundi, 23 septembre 2024, 13.04:41 h CEST Lukas Märdian a écrit :
> On 22.09.24 12:22, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > * Lukas Märdian [240920 13:13]:
> >> I've repeated the reasons why I think a hybrid stack using Netplan is a
> >> feasible solution many times in previous threads, therefore I'd
* Lukas Märdian [240923 07:05]:
> As described in the "Proposal" section and first answer of the FAQ, it's all
> about consistency.
>
> There seems to be a tendency for moving towards a hybrid stack, using
> sd-networkd and NetworkManager in different contexts/use-cases. But having
> fragmented w
Lukas Märdian writes:
> On 23.09.24 12:27, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
>
>> So on desktop installations including NetworkManager, netplan will
>> be
>> configured to do nothing? Why install netplan at all on desktop systems
>> then?
>
> Because it allows to add configuration in a way that is common with serve
Hi,
On 23.09.2024 ÖS 2:09, Lukas Märdian wrote:
But about working towards unified network configuration.
-- Lukas
So, is it "Let's include it in a dormant state for desktop systems
today, so we can go netplan-only in Trixie+1"?
I personally can't fathom why there's a great push about netpl
On Sep 23, Lukas Märdian wrote:
> As described in the "Proposal" section and first answer of the FAQ, it's all
> about consistency.
>
> There seems to be a tendency for moving towards a hybrid stack, using
> sd-networkd and NetworkManager in different contexts/use-cases. But having
> fragmented
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 12:25:15PM +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> * Pierre-Elliott Bécue [240923 11:34]:
> > I like ifupdown. It's simple and just works.
>
> I find this quite funny, given a recent discussion about IPv6 dad
> issues with ifupdown on #debian-admin.
The "discussion" was about
Lukas Märdian writes:
> On 23.09.24 12:27, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
>> On Mon, 2024-09-23 at 12:22 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
>>> On 22.09.24 15:58, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
On Fri, 2024-09-20 at 13:12 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
>>> The benefit that Netplan would provide in such cases is that
>>> debian-in
On 23.09.24 12:27, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
On Mon, 2024-09-23 at 12:22 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
On 22.09.24 15:58, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
On Fri, 2024-09-20 at 13:12 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
I've repeated the reasons why I think a hybrid stack using Netplan is a
feasible solution many times in previous
On 22.09.24 12:22, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
* Lukas Märdian [240920 13:13]:
I've repeated the reasons why I think a hybrid stack using Netplan is a
feasible solution many times in previous threads, therefore I'd like to refer
to a list of frequently asked questions, instead of spreading more r
Hi,
On Mon, 2024-09-23 at 12:22 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
> On 22.09.24 15:58, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
> > On Fri, 2024-09-20 at 13:12 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
> > > I've repeated the reasons why I think a hybrid stack using Netplan is a
> > > feasible solution many times in previous threads, therefo
On 22.09.24 23:59, Josh Triplett wrote:
On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 10:30:12PM +0200, Andrea Pappacoda wrote:
On Sun Sep 22, 2024 at 8:06 PM CEST, Josh Triplett wrote:
There's one other desirable feature that would make this a robust
solution: having NetworkManager do something to handle or ignore
* Pierre-Elliott Bécue [240923 11:34]:
> Lukas Märdian wrote on 20/09/2024 at 13:12:36+0200:
> > # Why
> > The ifupdown package is a Debian only solution that is becoming a
> > maintenance
> > burden. We've had plenty of discussions over the years and consensus is
> > that we
> > want to get ri
Hi!
On 22.09.24 15:58, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
On Fri, 2024-09-20 at 13:12 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
I've repeated the reasons why I think a hybrid stack using Netplan is a
feasible solution many times in previous threads, therefore I'd like to refer
to a list of frequently asked questions, instead o
* Holger Levsen [240923 12:05]:
> > ifupdown2 will still be around for anybody who wants to install it.
>
> sure.
Except that right now it has an open r-c bug since June 25, and is
missing from testing since August 6th.
If people want to continue having it, somebody who wants to work on
it need
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 11:04:06AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > ifupdown2 is like ifupdown, just rewritten in python.
> Yes, that's the problem: there was a consensus that it is not an
> appropriate dependency for the base system.
ah! thanks for pointing this out.
> ifupdown2 will still be aro
On 23.09.24 11:04, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 23, Holger Levsen wrote:
ifupdown2 is like ifupdown, just rewritten in python.
Yes, that's the problem: there was a consensus that it is not an
appropriate dependency for the base system.
ifupdown2 will still be around for anybody who wants to ins
Lukas Märdian wrote on 20/09/2024 at 13:12:36+0200:
> # Why
> The ifupdown package is a Debian only solution that is becoming a maintenance
> burden. We've had plenty of discussions over the years and consensus is that
> we
> want to get rid of it.
I like ifupdown. It's simple and just works.
I
On Sep 23, Holger Levsen wrote:
> ifupdown2 is like ifupdown, just rewritten in python.
Yes, that's the problem: there was a consensus that it is not an
appropriate dependency for the base system.
ifupdown2 will still be around for anybody who wants to install it.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.as
Hi Sirius,
Thanks for taking ifupdown-ng for a spin.
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 08:22:51AM +0200, Sirius wrote:
> > If you want no belss or whistles, then install neither of ifupdown,
> > network-manager nor systemd-networkd, and operate your network using ip
> > and (unless you also consider that a
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 10:14:39AM +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> * Holger Levsen [240923 10:06]:
> > I miss ifupdown2 in this discussion.
> In the older thread, it was pointed out that ifupdown2 might be
> currently in a bad place maintenance-wise;
> https://github.com/CumulusNetworks/ifupdow
* Holger Levsen [240923 10:06]:
> I miss ifupdown2 in this discussion.
In the older thread, it was pointed out that ifupdown2 might be
currently in a bad place maintenance-wise;
https://github.com/CumulusNetworks/ifupdown2/pulse/monthly and
https://github.com/CumulusNetworks/ifupdown2/graphs/cont
hi,
I miss ifupdown2 in this discussion.
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
⠈⠳⣄
Change is coming whether you like it or not.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On sön, 2024/09/22 at 23:41:56 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Netplan seems like *different* bells and whistles, rather than none.
True.
> If you want no belss or whistles, then install neither of ifupdown,
> network-manager nor systemd-networkd, and operate your network using ip
> and (unless
On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 10:30:12PM +0200, Andrea Pappacoda wrote:
> On Sun Sep 22, 2024 at 8:06 PM CEST, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > There's one other desirable feature that would make this a robust
> > solution: having NetworkManager do something to handle or ignore
> > interfaces managed by networkd
Quoting Sirius (2024-09-22 17:22:21)
> On fre, 2024/09/20 at 13:12:36 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
> [snip]
> > # Proposal
> > My proposal is to enable a hybrid network stack, using systemd-networkd (on
> > server/cloud/container/embedded systems) and NetworkManager (on
> > desktop/laptop
> > syste
> On 22 Sep 2024, at 14:47, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
>
> As far as I understood Lukas' mail, then at least currently not, as
> NM in Debian doesn't come with patches to support two-way
> configuration with netplan.
I think this is a very serious regression for desktop systems. Debian started
On Sun Sep 22, 2024 at 8:06 PM CEST, Josh Triplett wrote:
There's one other desirable feature that would make this a robust
solution: having NetworkManager do something to handle or ignore
interfaces managed by networkd.
If I'm interpreting correctly what you mean, this should already be
poss
Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 at 12:22:50 +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > d-i could make (or offer) a choice between networkd and
> > NetworkManager.
>
> d-i *already* makes a choice between ifupdown and NetworkManager: if
> NM has been pulled in by a task's dependencies (e.g. th
On fre, 2024/09/20 at 13:12:36 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
[snip]
> # Proposal
> My proposal is to enable a hybrid network stack, using systemd-networkd (on
> server/cloud/container/embedded systems) and NetworkManager (on desktop/laptop
> systems) unified through a common layer of Netplan configur
On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 03:45:30PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Sun Sep 22, 2024 at 12:47 PM BST, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > TBH the "interfaces nicely with the clickable frontends" part is
> > what I meant here. I don't know if anyone likes nm-cli.
>
> I prefer it to `ip`, when I can ge
On Sun Sep 22, 2024 at 12:47 PM BST, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> TBH the "interfaces nicely with the clickable frontends" part is
> what I meant here. I don't know if anyone likes nm-cli.
I prefer it to `ip`, when I can get away with using it instead.
--
Please do not CC me for listmail.
👱🏻
Hi,
On Fri, 2024-09-20 at 13:12 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
> I've repeated the reasons why I think a hybrid stack using Netplan is a
> feasible solution many times in previous threads, therefore I'd like to refer
> to a list of frequently asked questions, instead of spreading more reasons
> acros
* Marc Haber [240922 13:08]:
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 12:22:50 +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler
> wrote:
> >The "server" group supposedly wants (and I agree) networkd,
> >but they also want the configuration interface of networkd.
>
> Ack. I'd love networkd to have some more robustness features, but
> net
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 12:22:50 +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler
wrote:
>The "server" group supposedly wants (and I agree) networkd,
>but they also want the configuration interface of networkd.
Ack. I'd love networkd to have some more robustness features, but
netplan doesnt add anything here.
>The "laptop
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 at 12:22:50 +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> d-i could make (or offer) a choice between networkd and
> NetworkManager.
d-i *already* makes a choice between ifupdown and NetworkManager: if
NM has been pulled in by a task's dependencies (e.g. this happens when
you install the G
* Lukas Märdian [240920 13:13]:
> I've repeated the reasons why I think a hybrid stack using Netplan is a
> feasible solution many times in previous threads, therefore I'd like to refer
> to a list of frequently asked questions, instead of spreading more reasons
> across more replies: https://wiki
On 2024-09-20 06:49, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 20, Lukas Märdian wrote:
PS: I know this proposal doesn't please everybody, but I think it's
the most
Actually I cannot thing of your proposal having much support from
anybody else.
At this point I am starting to find annoying how hard you alone
On Sep 20, Lukas Märdian wrote:
> PS: I know this proposal doesn't please everybody, but I think it's the most
Actually I cannot thing of your proposal having much support from
anybody else.
At this point I am starting to find annoying how hard you alone are
trying to push Netplan on Debian.
>
Hi all!
After hosting a networking [bof] at DebConf 2024, consulting with the
networking [team] and receiving comments from others on this mailing list,
I'd like to summarize the state of affairs in our network tooling discussion
and make a formal proposal of how we can move forward. The change fr
52 matches
Mail list logo
