FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-20-2010, 05:21 PM
Michał Górny
 
Default openrc: oldnet vs newnet

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:16:08 -0500
William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:

> The drawback I see for newnet is that it does not allow the user to
> control each interface separately, so if you want to cycle one
> interface for some reason, this is not doable in that setup. I agree
> this is a serious drawback. Oldnet addresses this by having a
> separate script for each interface.

That's not entirely true. If you use DHCP indeed, 'cycling' a single
interface is as simple as:

$ ifconfig eth0 down
[...]
$ ifconfig eth0 up

And there's no real requirement for more action here -- dhcpcd running
in the background is going to automatically request IP address for that
interface.

> On my laptop, I have net.lo in the boot runlevel,
> and I start wpa_supplicant and dhcpcd in the default runlevel. In
> that setup, there is no need for any net.wlan* interface scriptss,
> because dhcpcd and wpa_supplicant manage everything.

And in that particular configuration oldnet is overly complex. You
could simple use network to set up lo0.

> Can pppd be set up to run standalone like wpa_supplicant can and
> manage the ppp portion of the interface? Do the dhcp clients
> recognize ppp interfaces? Afaik, there is no way for me to test this
> since I haven't had a ppp interface for years, and I do not know of a
> way to simulate one.

Not really. pppd is assigned to a single connection, and manages
a single interface. Unless you're going to use some kind of wrapper.

> If all of this can work, why not come up with a new version of oldnet
> that uses this type of setup?

The largest disadvantage in oldnet that I see is its' complexity. It
just wraps over everything, making the actual configuration more
complex than writing the actual commands.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
 
Old 09-20-2010, 05:43 PM
Mike Frysinger
 
Default openrc: oldnet vs newnet

On Monday, September 20, 2010 13:21:25 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:16:08 -0500 William Hubbs wrote:
> > The drawback I see for newnet is that it does not allow the user to
> > control each interface separately, so if you want to cycle one
> > interface for some reason, this is not doable in that setup. I agree
> > this is a serious drawback. Oldnet addresses this by having a
> > separate script for each interface.
>
> That's not entirely true. If you use DHCP indeed, 'cycling' a single
> interface is as simple as:
>
> $ ifconfig eth0 down
> [...]
> $ ifconfig eth0 up

relying on DHCP isnt an acceptable solution which means there is no safe way
to "reset" a single interface. from a maintainer/general pov, William's
statement is "true enough".
-mike
 
Old 09-20-2010, 05:52 PM
Joshua Saddler
 
Default openrc: oldnet vs newnet

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:16:08 -0500
William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:

> All,
>
> I want to start a new thread since the discussion on openrc is centering
> on whether we should use oldnet, newnet, or keep both.

Use "oldnet." Why?

1. We already have a migration guide setup for it:

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/openrc-migration.xml

Keeping "oldnet" will greatly reduce the time needed to change all our other docs, since I can use it as a reference, without needing write a completely new migration guide for "oldnet" and *then* still have to change all our other docs.

2. Users are already accustomed to doing things via "oldnet," since they've been using OpenRC and following this guide for two years now, since 2008.
 
Old 09-20-2010, 05:55 PM
Paul Arthur
 
Default openrc: oldnet vs newnet

On 2010-09-20, Micha? Górny <gentoo@mgorny.alt.pl> wrote:
> --Sig_/_5ZtNmvcA5/1kN/vUZv3UxF
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:16:08 -0500
> William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> The drawback I see for newnet is that it does not allow the user to
>> control each interface separately, so if you want to cycle one
>> interface for some reason, this is not doable in that setup. I agree
>> this is a serious drawback. Oldnet addresses this by having a
>> separate script for each interface.
>
> That's not entirely true. If you use DHCP indeed,

We don't. So it is entirely true. newnet does not provide a way to
cycle a single interface; you can work around that by going outside of
newnet, which is fairly simple if you're using dhcp, less so if you're
not, but that's not the same as newnet having the support.

--
Schapiro's Explanation:
The grass is always greener on the other side -- but that's
because they use more manure.
 
Old 09-20-2010, 06:07 PM
William Hubbs
 
Default openrc: oldnet vs newnet

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:52:23AM -0700, Joshua Saddler wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:16:08 -0500
> William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > I want to start a new thread since the discussion on openrc is centering
> > on whether we should use oldnet, newnet, or keep both.
>
> Use "oldnet." Why?
>
> 1. We already have a migration guide setup for it:
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/openrc-migration.xml
>
> Keeping "oldnet" will greatly reduce the time needed to change all our other docs, since I can use it as a reference, without needing write a completely new migration guide for "oldnet" and *then* still have to change all our other docs.
>
> 2. Users are already accustomed to doing things via "oldnet," since they've been using OpenRC and following this guide for two years now, since 2008.

I'm fine with it being the default for stable for now.

However, I do think that once we stabilize it, we
can learn something from parts of newnet, and possibly use what it was
trying to do.

William
 
Old 09-20-2010, 06:18 PM
Antoni Grzymala
 
Default openrc: oldnet vs newnet

William Hubbs dixit (2010-09-20, 11:16):

> I want to start a new thread since the discussion on openrc is
> centering on whether we should use oldnet, newnet, or keep both.
>
> The drawback I see for newnet is that it does not allow the user to
> control each interface separately, so if you want to cycle one
> interface for some reason, this is not doable in that setup. I
> agree this is a serious drawback. Oldnet addresses this by having a
> separate script for each interface.
>
> The thing I do not like about oldnet is the way it handles wifi and
> dynamic interfaces by running dhcpcd and wpa_supplicant on each
> interface instead of running a global instance of them so that they
> can control the interfaces themselves.
>
> On my laptop, I have net.lo in the boot runlevel, and I start
> wpa_supplicant and dhcpcd in the default runlevel. In that setup,
> there is no need for any net.wlan* interface scriptss, because
> dhcpcd and wpa_supplicant manage everything.

Does that support configurations where I set static addresses
(including ipv6) and routes (also including ipv6) based on the SSID as
is allowed by the oldnet scheme of things? I (and probably lots other
“power users”) rely on those features extensively and I thank whoever
came up with the idea of actually configuring that in a pretty simple
way (compared to other distros and OS'es where it is more complicated
or plain impossible sometimes).

Best,

--
[a]
 
Old 09-20-2010, 07:05 PM
William Hubbs
 
Default openrc: oldnet vs newnet

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 08:18:32PM +0200, Antoni Grzymala wrote:
> Does that support configurations where I set static addresses
> (including ipv6) and routes (also including ipv6) based on the SSID as
> is allowed by the oldnet scheme of things? I (and probably lots other
> ???power users???) rely on those features extensively and I thank whoever
> came up with the idea of actually configuring that in a pretty simple
> way (compared to other distros and OS'es where it is more complicated
> or plain impossible sometimes).

Things like this are why I wanted to bring up this
discussion. I personally haven't had a reason to set things up based
on a ssid, so I've never tried to do that.

wpa_supplicant doesn't assign addresses or routes to interfaces; it just
handles the wireless portion of the setup.

In my setup, dhcpcd handles assigning the route and address to the
interface.

For a setup involving static routes and addresses on wireless, you would
still need to use a network script to configure the routes or addresses,
just like you do for static addresses on a wired interface, you just
wouldn't want it to run wpa_supplicant since wpa_supplicant would
already be running.

I guess these are the questions I'm asking in this thread:

dhcpcd and wpa_supplicant, in particular, are able to manage any
network interfaces they find on a system independently of what we are
doing in the network scripts. The oldnet scheme runs one instance of
these for each network interface instead of running one instance and
allowing that instance to manage all of the interfaces. What is the
reason we do that? Is it possible to rework things so that the oldnet
scheme uses system wide instances of services instead of running
multiple copies of them on multiple interfaces where possible?

William
 
Old 09-21-2010, 01:22 AM
Duncan
 
Default openrc: oldnet vs newnet

William Hubbs posted on Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:07:44 -0500 as excerpted:

> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:52:23AM -0700, Joshua Saddler wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:16:08 -0500
>> William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> > All,
>> >
>> > I want to start a new thread since the discussion on openrc is
>> > centering on whether we should use oldnet, newnet, or keep both.
>>
>> Use "oldnet." Why?
>>
>> 1. We already have a migration guide setup for it:
>>
>> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/openrc-migration.xml
>>
>> Keeping "oldnet" will greatly reduce the time needed to change all our
>> other docs, since I can use it as a reference, without needing write a
>> completely new migration guide for "oldnet" and *then* still have to
>> change all our other docs.
>>
>> 2. Users are already accustomed to doing things via "oldnet," since
>> they've been using OpenRC and following this guide for two years now,
>> since 2008.
>
> I'm fine with it being the default for stable for now.
>
> However, I do think that once we stabilize it, we can learn something
> from parts of newnet, and possibly use what it was trying to do.

[I noticed that only the two bugs were still open a couple days ago, with
one being documentation, with effectively an "after *" dependency, and
wondered when these threads might appear. =:^) The below is my opinion,
yes, but it's also intended as a bit of a high-level summary of what I've
seen on the two threads so far. It seems to me this is most likely where
things are headed, so if people disagree, perhaps they better post.]

Keeping oldnet the default and only documented method, does seem to be the
most pragmatic/practical solution.

Given nightmorph's indication that he's not interested in redoing the docs
twice, or documenting both methods, that does mean we're keeping oldnet
for the foreseeable future, probably as long as we keep openrc, and
there's no clear/foreseeable plan to migrate from it, so... .

The implication is even if we don't immediately drop newnet support for
those that are already using it, it'll be undocumented, untested for
network package bumps, and therefore unsupported. In practice, anything
in /that/ status eventually dies, so by implication, a decision to make
oldnet the default and only documented version ultimately means newnet
will become less and less practical to run as it requires more and more
specific installation support and workarounds to keep it up and running.
However, if we keep newnet around as a masked USE flag until it's no
longer worth continuing, it'll give people already using it time to switch
back, and/or to build up their own site scripts as workarounds, as newnet
gradually gets more and more stale and broken.

It's worth noting here that newnet is a part of openrc, which has only
been in ~arch. There's nothing wrong with running ~arch, I run it myself,
but one thing those running it do need to be prepared for, is change,
change that in some cases means rolling back to older setups. As such, I
don't believe the status of anyone already switched to newnet is of
particular concern -- it's a risk they took, that they at least should
have known was a risk. I don't believe we /need/ to leave newnet as a USE
flag on their account, masked or unmasked, but given the functionality is
there already, it doesn't hurt to leave it there, masked, for those that
use it, to give them time to either switch back or build their own network
scripts, as they wish.

Meanwhile, as you (williamh) rightfully mention, just because we decide to
settle on oldnet only for documentation and support, doesn't mean there's
nothing in newnet worth learning from and possibly pulling into oldnet.
Nothing in the above says oldnet won't continue to grow and change. In
fact, that alone would ultimately destine it for the same fate as we're
discussing for newnet. So yes, let's certainly borrow from newnet where
it makes sense, and continue to adapt and change oldnet to modern tools
and ways of doing things. Nothing wrong with that!

Finally, I'm not sure it absolutely needs it, but for clarity-sake and to
avoid second-guessing and debate continuing long past the point of
usefulness, I believe a council vote on the issue is appropriate. I don't
know where we are in the meeting cycle, but it seems to me that barring
some special-case exception, a vote in 10 days or so should be plenty of
time for folks to make their opinions known, so the first meeting after
that looks to be appropriate for a vote, to me.

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
 
Old 09-21-2010, 03:03 AM
William Hubbs
 
Default openrc: oldnet vs newnet

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 01:22:59AM +0000, Duncan wrote:
> Keeping oldnet the default and only documented method, does seem to be the
> most pragmatic/practical solution.
>
> Given nightmorph's indication that he's not interested in redoing the docs
> twice, or documenting both methods, that does mean we're keeping oldnet
> for the foreseeable future, probably as long as we keep openrc, and
> there's no clear/foreseeable plan to migrate from it, so... .
>
> The implication is even if we don't immediately drop newnet support for
> those that are already using it, it'll be undocumented, untested for
> network package bumps, and therefore unsupported. In practice, anything
> in /that/ status eventually dies, so by implication, a decision to make
> oldnet the default and only documented version ultimately means newnet
> will become less and less practical to run as it requires more and more
> specific installation support and workarounds to keep it up and running.
> However, if we keep newnet around as a masked USE flag until it's no
> longer worth continuing, it'll give people already using it time to switch
> back, and/or to build up their own site scripts as workarounds, as newnet
> gradually gets more and more stale and broken.

It won't be "masked", it just won't be the default setup, and you will
have to do some work that will not be documented to turn it on.

> Finally, I'm not sure it absolutely needs it, but for clarity-sake and to
> avoid second-guessing and debate continuing long past the point of
> usefulness, I believe a council vote on the issue is appropriate. I don't
> know where we are in the meeting cycle, but it seems to me that barring
> some special-case exception, a vote in 10 days or so should be plenty of
> time for folks to make their opinions known, so the first meeting after
> that looks to be appropriate for a vote, to me.

If we keep oldnet as the default, there is nothing for the council to
vote on as far as I can see, because stable users are covered in the
migration guide at http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/openrc-migration.xml.
If they follow that path, there is nothing special they need to do
outside of that, so there isn't any affect.

William
 
Old 09-21-2010, 04:14 AM
Mike Frysinger
 
Default openrc: oldnet vs newnet

On Monday, September 20, 2010 23:03:54 William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 01:22:59AM +0000, Duncan wrote:
> > Finally, I'm not sure it absolutely needs it, but for clarity-sake and to
> > avoid second-guessing and debate continuing long past the point of
> > usefulness, I believe a council vote on the issue is appropriate. I
> > don't know where we are in the meeting cycle, but it seems to me that
> > barring some special-case exception, a vote in 10 days or so should be
> > plenty of time for folks to make their opinions known, so the first
> > meeting after that looks to be appropriate for a vote, to me.
>
> If we keep oldnet as the default, there is nothing for the council to
> vote on as far as I can see, because stable users are covered in the
> migration guide at http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/openrc-migration.xml.
> If they follow that path, there is nothing special they need to do
> outside of that, so there isn't any affect.

yeah, that isnt necessary. i didnt think people were actually using newnet
and so we could punt it, but apparently i'm wrong in that regard. which means
we either reach feature parity/simplicity between the two and merge them, or
leave it alone if, by design, that is not feasible.

oldnet may be complicated in some regards, but the fact that it easily works
on so many diverse systems/setups means it cannot simply be culled. on s390
for example, network setup requires loading modules and grubbing around in
/sys/ before the interface even exists. there is no package/script to do this
for you and every other distro ive seen out there that supports s390 has a
huge number of hacks in their init system to support things. whereas the
Gentoo way is extraordinarily clean.
-mike
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:30 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org