• Re: default network management tools (was: ifupdown maintenance)

    From Simon McVittie@21:1/5 to Matthias Urlichs on Tue Jul 9 12:50:01 2024
    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 at 10:57:39 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
    Agreed: either it's drop-in compatible or we may as well switch the
    default to NM and/or systemd-networkd.

    Well, here's a heretical thought: why don't we do that anyway, at least for new
    installations?

    To some extent, we are already there: for new laptop/desktop
    installations, NM is already the default (certainly true for GNOME,
    and hopefully for most/all of the other tasksel-supported desktops).

    For new server/embedded installations, I think networkd would be a
    better default than ifupdown (I switched my servers from ifupdown to
    networkd sometime between Debian 9 and 10, according to the etckeeper
    logs). See my recent mail about how we should probably not be inventing Debian-specific container frameworks that will end up with one overworked maintainer being a single point of failure for the distribution, but
    replace "container framework" with "network management tool" and the
    same ideas are equally valid. Like Podman in the containers space, NM
    and systemd-networkd both have the advantage of being used outside the
    Debian bubble, sharing the responsibility for their continued existence
    among *considerably* more people.

    networkd seems like an entirely reasonable implementation of "make the
    easy things easy" (/lib/systemd/network/80-ethernet.network.example
    shows how to bring up DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 on every Ethernet device in 4 non-comment lines, without having to hard-code the name of any specific device), which is the main thing we want from a default - I continue to
    believe that defaults should be chosen to be appropriate for new users
    without specialized requirements, because experienced users already
    know how to apply different configuration if they want to, and users
    with specialized requirements will have to apply special configuration
    to achieve what they require whatever we do.

    At the same time, networkd also has "make the hard things possible"
    available in its configuration language (see man pages for details).

    I'm sure that when ifupdown was written, having our own network management
    tool was seen as a necessary part of providing an OS distribution
    (in the same way that the Red Hat family historically had its own
    framework based on /etc/sysconfig, and so on), but thankfully things
    have changed since then, and we now have non-distro-specific network
    management components that can do just as good a job (if not better). It
    used to be the case that ifupdown could bring up many network interfaces "statically" with no extraneous background processes, but available RAM
    has grown by several orders of magnitude, and DHCP and modern wifi both
    require long-running processes to supervise them *anyway*, making that
    much less of an advantage.

    Of course, there is nothing to stop anyone who is interested in it from
    keeping non-default frameworks available, either Debian-specific or not -
    if nothing else, users of non-systemd init systems are going to want an alternative to networkd - but if those frameworks aren't load-bearing for
    the distribution as a whole, then that will give their maintainers less
    support burden and more freedom to experiment.

    smcv

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bernd Zeimetz@21:1/5 to Simon McVittie on Wed Jul 10 18:40:01 2024
    On Tue, 2024-07-09 at 11:45 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 at 10:57:39 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
        Agreed: either it's drop-in compatible or we may as well switch
    the
        default to NM and/or systemd-networkd.

    Well, here's a heretical thought: why don't we do that anyway, at
    least for new
    installations?

    To some extent, we are already there: for new laptop/desktop
    installations, NM is already the default (certainly true for GNOME,
    and hopefully for most/all of the other tasksel-supported desktops).

    For new server/embedded installations, I think networkd would be a
    better default than ifupdown [....]

    yes please, I would love to see Debian switch from ifupdown to
    NM/networkd. ifupdown was the perfect tool for the time it was created
    in, but things have advanced, and imho now is a good time to switch.


    Bernd

    --
    Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
    http://bzed.de http://www.debian.org
    GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marc Haber@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 11 08:20:02 2024
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 18:36:19 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de>
    wrote:
    yes please, I would love to see Debian switch from ifupdown to
    NM/networkd. ifupdown was the perfect tool for the time it was created
    in, but things have advanced, and imho now is a good time to switch.

    I agree. Nothing has yet reached the ease-of-use-level¹ of ifupdown
    paired with ifupdown-scripts-zg2 that I maintained and used in the
    2000 years, but I eventually decided to drop that easy-of-use for
    networkd, lowering my workload significantly.

    Greetings
    Marc

    ¹ ifupdown-scripts-zg2 cached commands needed for the takedown of the interface when it was brought up and didnt need the interface
    configuration to take it down. Therefore, you could change
    configuration while the Interfacce was up and then just say "ifdown ;
    ifup" and be fine. No network configuration software up to today has
    THAT feature.
    --
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " |
    Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Santiago Ruano =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rinc=@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 11 14:20:01 2024
    El 09/07/24 a las 11:45, Simon McVittie escribió:
    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 at 10:57:39 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
    Agreed: either it's drop-in compatible or we may as well switch the
    default to NM and/or systemd-networkd.

    Well, here's a heretical thought: why don't we do that anyway, at least for new
    installations?


    [snip]

    ... See my recent mail about how we should probably not be inventing Debian-specific container frameworks that will end up with one overworked maintainer being a single point of failure for the distribution, but
    replace "container framework" with "network management tool" and the
    same ideas are equally valid. Like Podman in the containers space, NM
    and systemd-networkd both have the advantage of being used outside the
    Debian bubble, sharing the responsibility for their continued existence
    among *considerably* more people.

    ACK. This is a sound argument. Thanks.

    -- Santiago

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iHUEABYIAB0WIQR+lHTq7mkJOyB6t2Un3j1FEEiG7wUCZo/NNwAKCRAn3j1FEEiG 77QbAQDJGlWL51XVzfy18g0IT5zcxZ93ME6ChcKSyNZI/DYG8gEA8YrxCeOZorFj lOrwKhg0plIOx76fhqJNIWYZuvIhywQ=
    =eQHk
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)