Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.devel > #113474
| From | Lukas Märdian <slyon@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.devel, linux.debian.maint.boot |
| Subject | Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie |
| Date | 2024-09-23 13:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <JpP73-egNv-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <JoJQ7-dBrt-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <Jps0O-e2M3-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 22.09.24 12:22, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > * Lukas Märdian <slyon@debian.org> [240920 13:13]: >> I've repeated the reasons why I think a hybrid stack using Netplan is a >> feasible solution many times in previous threads, therefore I'd like to refer >> to a list of frequently asked questions, instead of spreading more reasons >> across more replies: https://wiki.debian.org/Netplan/FAQ >> >> # Why >> The ifupdown package is a Debian only solution that is becoming a maintenance >> burden. We've had plenty of discussions over the years and consensus is that we >> want to get rid of it. >> Some variations of Debian have already moved forward with choosing a different >> stack, such as desktop/laptop installations (using NetworkManager) and cloud >> images (using Netplan+systemd-networkd). Also, ifupdown-ng exists as a modern >> re-implementation of the classic tooling, that strives to become drop-in >> [compatible]. > > Thanks for providing the FAQ and this "Why" section, but it seems to > leave open why we would want or need netplan as the default. As the > FAQ shows, netplan is available as an optional package in many > distros. The same is already true in Debian thanks to you. As described in the "Proposal" section and first answer of the FAQ, it's all about consistency. There seems to be a tendency for moving towards a hybrid stack, using sd-networkd and NetworkManager in different contexts/use-cases. But having fragmented ways of doing network configuration provides bad UX, as it can confuse users, who first need to understand what sortf of Debian they are using, before looking for solutions. Netplan solves this and allows for providing common solution that work across the system. The Netplan tooling around that, like "netplan status" or "netplan try" to query/debug the network configuration or apply, but roll-back configuration, in case it did not work out as expected, are only added benefits. > For your described usecase groups, which seem to clearly map to the > backends used by netplan, I do not see what netplan brings to the > table. The "server" group supposedly wants (and I agree) networkd, > but they also want the configuration interface of networkd. > The "laptop" group supposedly wants (and I agree) NetworkManager, > but they also want the configuration interface of NetworkManager. > > Who actually wants the configuration interface of netplan, > especially by default? > > I see nobody saying "yet another layer is a lot of fun!", and the > usecase groups do not overlap that much, that they both would *need* > the same interface? The opposite seems to apply. It's sad to see that fellow DDs do not seem to care about consistency and usability in this regard. >> PS: I know this proposal doesn't please everybody, but I think it's the most >> actionable option that we have on the table and strikes a good compromise. As a >> replacement for ifupdown is overdue, we should adopt our network stack for >> Trixie. > > d-i could make (or offer) a choice between networkd and > NetworkManager. Doesn't have to be netplan. I can vaguely see how > d-i might be simpler by writing netplan config, but it still has to > make a choice of the default backend? And then what does netplan > help here? > > Given d-i then will have to make a choice, *none* of the networking > stack packages should have a "Priority:" higher than optional. As > in, even if we would go with netplan in d-i, there is no "default" > anymore and people have to make choices. As stated below, d-i already makes this choice between ifupdown, NetworkManager and Netplan, depending on context of installed packages in the target system. There's also a (stale?) MR to add systemd-networkd to the mix [1]. Personally, I do not necesarily think showing more options to the users is better. But I've heard this being suggested several times. So how do others think about having a network-stack selection in debian-installer/tasksel? Similar to the desktop-stack selection. Cheers, Lukas [1] https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/netcfg/-/merge_requests/11
Back to linux.debian.devel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Lukas Märdian <slyon@debian.org> - 2024-09-20 13:20 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2024-09-20 15:50 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Bill MacAllister <bill@ca-zephyr.org> - 2024-09-20 22:20 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Chris Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org> - 2024-09-22 12:30 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> - 2024-09-22 13:10 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Chris Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org> - 2024-09-22 13:50 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie "Jonathan Dowland" <jmtd@debian.org> - 2024-09-22 16:50 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2024-09-22 17:20 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Hakan Bayındır <hakan@bayindir.org> - 2024-09-22 23:30 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2024-09-22 13:10 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> - 2024-09-22 20:10 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie "Andrea Pappacoda" <andrea@pappacoda.it> - 2024-09-22 22:40 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> - 2024-09-23 00:10 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Lukas Märdian <slyon@debian.org> - 2024-09-23 12:40 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Lukas Märdian <slyon@debian.org> - 2024-09-23 13:10 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2024-09-23 14:10 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Marvin Renich <mrvn@renich.org> - 2024-09-23 14:50 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> - 2024-09-23 15:00 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Daniel Baumann <daniel@debian.org> - 2024-09-24 08:10 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> - 2024-09-24 14:20 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Ansgar 🙀 <ansgar@debian.org> - 2024-09-22 16:30 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Lukas Märdian <slyon@debian.org> - 2024-09-23 12:30 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Ansgar 🙀 <ansgar@debian.org> - 2024-09-23 12:50 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Lukas Märdian <slyon@debian.org> - 2024-09-23 13:20 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Richard Lewis <richard.lewis.debian@googlemail.com> - 2024-09-23 13:40 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Lukas Märdian <slyon@debian.org> - 2024-09-24 15:40 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Ansgar 🙀 <ansgar@debian.org> - 2024-09-27 10:10 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Bjørn Mork <bjorn@mork.no> - 2024-09-23 14:20 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2024-09-27 20:20 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Ansgar 🙀 <ansgar@debian.org> - 2024-09-27 21:10 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Sirius <sirius@trudheim.com> - 2024-09-22 17:50 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2024-09-22 23:50 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Sirius <sirius@trudheim.com> - 2024-09-23 08:30 +0200
ifupdown-ng source stanza (Was: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie) Daniel Gröber <dxld@darkboxed.org> - 2024-09-23 11:00 +0200
Re: ifupdown-ng source stanza (Was: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie) Sirius <sirius@trudheim.com> - 2024-09-24 13:40 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2024-09-23 10:10 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Chris Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org> - 2024-09-23 10:20 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2024-09-23 10:30 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2024-09-23 11:10 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Lukas Märdian <slyon@debian.org> - 2024-09-23 12:10 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2024-09-23 12:10 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Chris Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org> - 2024-09-23 12:30 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2024-09-23 11:40 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Chris Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org> - 2024-09-23 12:30 +0200
ifupdown behaviour with IPv6 DAD failure (Was: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie) Daniel Gröber <dxld@darkboxed.org> - 2024-09-23 13:50 +0200
Re: ifupdown behaviour with IPv6 DAD failure (Was: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie) Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org> - 2024-09-23 17:50 +0200
Re: ifupdown behaviour with IPv6 DAD failure (Was: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie) Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> - 2024-09-24 00:20 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2024-09-24 10:50 +0200
Re: proposal: Hybrid network stack for Trixie Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2024-10-07 18:30 +0200
csiph-web