On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Dan Williams <dcbw(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 15:25 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Dan Williams <dcbw(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > > Well, eventually the connection editor could potentially replace the
GUI
> > > functionality of s-c-n and ifup/ifdown could be pointed at NM, but
we're
> > > not there yet. There's a few more device types that NM would need
to
> > > support (mainly PPPoE/PPPoATM connections, good ISDN, etc) before we
> > > could think about replacing anything. They are going to be parallel
but
> > > mutually exclusive for the time being. Also there will be some people
> > > who won't ever want to use NM for some setups even though NM could
work
> > > for them; but that's fine.
> >
> > Are those people...looking at using zeroconf. I get the reasoning for
> > avoiding NM in a more controlled networking situation... but zeroconf
> > seems like NM's bread and butter to me... but what the hell do i know.
> >
> > -jef
>
>
> How about static IPs and multiple concurrent networks? I couldn't get
> either to work with network manager in F8
A single static IP per interface works pretty well if you use the NM in
updates-testing (svn3370) and have set it up to use static IP in
system-config-network. Multiple IPs per interface will come eventually.
It'll even work before login.
Multiple concurrent networks are what I'm working on right now; pretty
good progress here and I hope to land something in the next week or so
in F9, and when it's pretty solid it will also show up in F8.
Thanks for the update. I've had some bad experiences with NM before,
but I like the idea behind it.
--
Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine
(
www.pembo13.com )