On 14/12/15, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2015-12-15 at 01:53 +0530, Kushal Das wrote:
> > The thing is that it's almost impossible to say "if we just run all X
> > tests, we can guarantee everything is fine!" in real life, especially
> > at the level of something as complex as an entire OS networking stack.
> > It's simply an unavoidable fact of life that the more network
> > configuration stacks we have in mass usage, the more likely it is that
> > there will be problems. We already have the legacy network.service and
> > NetworkManager, adding a third choice is kind of egregious.
> The third choice is already in the images along with systemd.
But it is not used as the default networking configuration stack by any
existing Fedora deliverable of which I'm aware.
Correct in that point.
> We are
> talking about enabling it as default networking stack. Ubuntu already
> has a beta implementation in place with network instead of networking
> If we have to stay ahead in innovation, we have to do things for the
> "First" of our four foundation. We were ahead in adopting systemd, we
> should do the same for Networkd.
The situation is not at all the same; there is no clear expectation
that networkd will replace NetworkManager, indeed AFAIK it's been
explicitly stated that it won't, because it's not desirable for it to
cover all the complex configurations NM supports.
Networkd will not replace NetworkManager. As Major wrote in his
findings, Networkd works really great (with very less configuration)
when used for head less systems. NetworkManager in the other hand can
do many different magics for desktop/laptop users. In our cloud
scenario, we are looking into the head less use case. We also have clear
examples written by Major for various complex cases with Networkd.
As I mentioned in my previous mail, the other *major* distributions on
cloud are also moving to Networkd. If we provide the same, it will be
somewhat helpful to migrate for the users.
Fedora Cloud Engineer
CPython Core Developer
CentOS Cloud SIG lead