Network configuration future

[Adam Williamson]

On 2012-08-29 6:17, Denys Vlasenko wrote:

> We've got Network Manager, which is also doing it's job nicely and 
> won't
> give you any headaches if you prevent it from stepping on anybody 
> else's
> toes. Or try to make it manage a thousand devices, like on System z.
>
> *** Network Manager is just another daemon created for a task
> which historically often did not need any daemons. It's almost as if
> the new generation of Unix hackers wants to redo everything -
> in x10 or x100 times bloated and more complex way than it was done
> before.

<snip>

> So, what properties should a new network management framework have?
> ===================================================================

...

> Beyond such aspects, there are a number of desirable properties.
>
> One, a modern network management framework should run as a service. 
> The
> kernel offers a plethora of notifications via rtnetlink, and 
> increasingly
> expects user space to react to these (for instance in the IPv6 area).
> Running a network management daemon allows us to track the state, 
> detect
> changes, and react to them appropriately.

There appears to be some cognitive dissonance in the document. It seems 
odd to criticize NetworkManager solely for being a bloated, complex 
daemon, and then, having dismissed NM, in describing the ideal 
next-generation network management framework, declare that it ought to 
be a bloated complex daemon...
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net