On 12/21/2015 04:05 PM, Subhendu Ghosh wrote:

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Subhendu Ghosh <sghosh151@gmail.com> wrote:
> Both networks and NM might be needed in the future. We should look into how
> we can build images that support both or look to build alternate images.
> NM stack is useful for WiFi and cellular enabled images in IoT gateway
> devices. I don't really see networkd supporting the those requirements.

I would expect an IoT image for a gateway device would need a bunch of
other things that wouldn't be relevant for a generic cloud image so
would it be better to target that as a separate image rather than
trying to jam everything into one? It would be easier to define and a
lot simpler in terms of QA and other moving parts.

True - that's why I noted there may be use cases for both. And we should attempt to wire up the usability thru both stacks even if we end up building 2 different images.

Also as Colin noted, Atomic host is likely to get used on both bare-metal and cloud  - so giving networkd a full press effort for a release cycle might be good. In not like these decisions cannot be changed.



cloud mailing list
I thought NM was starting to use networkd under the covers?