Re: ifupdown/dhcp
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 08:46:04PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sun, 2022-05-08 at 22:07 +0200, Steve Langasek wrote: > [...] > > Ubuntu no longer uses isc-dhcp by default, because it no longer uses > > ifupdown; NetworkManager and networkd both have their own implementations of > > dhcp clients which are used by preference. *However*, isc-dhcp is still > > installed as part of all Ubuntu systems, because it is the only client > > implementation that integrates with initramfs-tools > > (/usr/share/initramfs-tools/hooks/zz-dhclient) > Upstream initramfs-tools uses klibc ipconfig for DHCP, but that is > limited to IPv4. Is that why Ubuntu is not using it, or was there > another problem? IPv6 support was the main driver. We use it for both DHCP4 and DHCP6 though, for consistency. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: ifupdown/dhcp
On Sun, 2022-05-08 at 22:07 +0200, Steve Langasek wrote: [...] > Ubuntu no longer uses isc-dhcp by default, because it no longer uses > ifupdown; NetworkManager and networkd both have their own implementations of > dhcp clients which are used by preference. *However*, isc-dhcp is still > installed as part of all Ubuntu systems, because it is the only client > implementation that integrates with initramfs-tools > (/usr/share/initramfs-tools/hooks/zz-dhclient) Upstream initramfs-tools uses klibc ipconfig for DHCP, but that is limited to IPv4. Is that why Ubuntu is not using it, or was there another problem? Ben. > so if you are using nfsroot > or any other network-based rootfs, it appears to still be the only game in > town. It would be a good idea to make sure as part of the deprecation of > isc-dhcp-client that we get initramfs integration of whatever is the > preferred replacement. -- Ben Hutchings Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to complain. - Lily Tomlin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: ifupdown/dhcp
On Sunday, 8 May 2022 21:34:39 CEST Michael Tokarev wrote: > What's up with ISC dhclient? "ISC DHCP Client and Relay End of Maintenance" @ https://www.isc.org/blogs/dhcp-client-relay-eom/ Couple of quotes: "ISC plans to end maintenance of the ISC DHCP client and relay by the end of Q1, 2022." Why: "ISC has no support customers for the ISC DHCP client or relay, and we haven’t for at least a decade, so there is no funding stream to support continuing effort on them." What about users: "ISC DHCP has been, and remains, open source. Anyone can fork it and develop or maintain it. Users still have all the open source freedoms with ISC DHCP that they have always had. We are just announcing that ISC will no longer maintain this code." HTH, Diederik signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: ifupdown/dhcp
On 2022-05-08 2:07 p.m., Steve Langasek wrote: On Sun, May 08, 2022 at 11:24:12AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: I've been trying to make sense of the NEWS item in isc-dhcp-client (that alternatives are needed) in combination with the functionality of ifupdown and what the implications are for debian upgrades generally. I figure I'll copy the ifupdown2 package in here as well, as they are a replacement for ifupdown in some installations. [if they aren't tracking changes to ifupdown] isc-dhcp-client as of the last upgrade is telling users to stop using it (the default dhcp client for debian). ifupdown (the traditional tool for managing networking on debian systems) has a Recommends on "isc-dhcp-client | dhcp-client". "dhcp-client" is a virtual package provided by "dhcpcanon" (version 0.8.5, which hasn't been touched in 4 years), "isc-dhcp-client", and "dhcpcd5" (which will trash a working configuration managed by ifupdown if installed, as it will try to take over interfaces currently set, e.g., to manual). This seems suboptimal at best. I believe that ifupdown will attempt to use udhcpd if installed, which should be a mostly-transparent change (except for the potential loss of lease information and any customization of dhclient scripts) but it isn't even on the ifupdown recommends list. ifupdown also (used to?) use pump, but that package went away a long time ago. So what's the path forward, maintaining compatibility and not breaking systems upgrading from current stable? Do we come up with a dhcpcd5 variant that *only* touches interfaces it is directed to touch via /etc/network/interfaces? Do we add udhcpcd to the "dhcp-client" virtual package and/or make it the default for ifupdown? Do we fork isc's dhcp suite and just continue to use dhclient? Revive pump? Something else? Not an answer to your question, but a related issue I'll mention here. Ubuntu no longer uses isc-dhcp by default, because it no longer uses ifupdown; NetworkManager and networkd both have their own implementations of dhcp clients which are used by preference. *However*, isc-dhcp is still installed as part of all Ubuntu systems, because it is the only client implementation that integrates with initramfs-tools (/usr/share/initramfs-tools/hooks/zz-dhclient) so if you are using nfsroot or any other network-based rootfs, it appears to still be the only game in town. It would be a good idea to make sure as part of the deprecation of isc-dhcp-client that we get initramfs integration of whatever is the preferred replacement.
Re: ifupdown/dhcp
On Mon, 9 May 2022 at 08:07, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, May 08, 2022 at 11:24:12AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > [apologies to package aliases getting this twice due to autocomplete > fail] > > > I've been trying to make sense of the NEWS item in isc-dhcp-client (that > > alternatives are needed) in combination with the functionality of > ifupdown > > and what the implications are for debian upgrades generally. > > > isc-dhcp-client as of the last upgrade is telling users to stop using it > > (the default dhcp client for debian). > > > ifupdown (the traditional tool for managing networking on debian systems) > > has a Recommends on "isc-dhcp-client | dhcp-client". "dhcp-client" is a > > virtual package provided by "dhcpcanon" (version 0.8.5, which hasn't been > > touched in 4 years), "isc-dhcp-client", and "dhcpcd5" (which will trash a > > working configuration managed by ifupdown if installed, as it will try to > > take over interfaces currently set, e.g., to manual). This seems > suboptimal > > at best. > > > I believe that ifupdown will attempt to use udhcpd if installed, which > > should be a mostly-transparent change (except for the potential loss of > > lease information and any customization of dhclient scripts) but it isn't > > even on the ifupdown recommends list. > > > ifupdown also (used to?) use pump, but that package went away a long time > > ago. > > > So what's the path forward, maintaining compatibility and not breaking > > systems upgrading from current stable? Do we come up with a dhcpcd5 > variant > > that *only* touches interfaces it is directed to touch via > > /etc/network/interfaces? Do we add udhcpcd to the "dhcp-client" virtual > > package and/or make it the default for ifupdown? Do we fork isc's dhcp > suite > > and just continue to use dhclient? Revive pump? Something else? > > Not an answer to your question, but a related issue I'll mention here. > > Ubuntu no longer uses isc-dhcp by default, because it no longer uses > ifupdown; NetworkManager and networkd both have their own implementations > of > dhcp clients which are used by preference. *However*, isc-dhcp is still > installed as part of all Ubuntu systems, because it is the only client > implementation that integrates with initramfs-tools > (/usr/share/initramfs-tools/hooks/zz-dhclient) so if you are using nfsroot > or any other network-based rootfs, it appears to still be the only game in > town. It would be a good idea to make sure as part of the deprecation of > isc-dhcp-client that we get initramfs integration of whatever is the > preferred replacement. > Well busybox's udhcpc would seem a likely candidate here -- but its IPv6 support (iirc the reason we switch to dhclient from klibc's ipconfig in Ubuntu's initramfs, at least) is described as incomplete. Cheers, mwh
Re: ifupdown/dhcp
On Sun, May 08, 2022 at 11:24:12AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > [apologies to package aliases getting this twice due to autocomplete fail] > I've been trying to make sense of the NEWS item in isc-dhcp-client (that > alternatives are needed) in combination with the functionality of ifupdown > and what the implications are for debian upgrades generally. > isc-dhcp-client as of the last upgrade is telling users to stop using it > (the default dhcp client for debian). > ifupdown (the traditional tool for managing networking on debian systems) > has a Recommends on "isc-dhcp-client | dhcp-client". "dhcp-client" is a > virtual package provided by "dhcpcanon" (version 0.8.5, which hasn't been > touched in 4 years), "isc-dhcp-client", and "dhcpcd5" (which will trash a > working configuration managed by ifupdown if installed, as it will try to > take over interfaces currently set, e.g., to manual). This seems suboptimal > at best. > I believe that ifupdown will attempt to use udhcpd if installed, which > should be a mostly-transparent change (except for the potential loss of > lease information and any customization of dhclient scripts) but it isn't > even on the ifupdown recommends list. > ifupdown also (used to?) use pump, but that package went away a long time > ago. > So what's the path forward, maintaining compatibility and not breaking > systems upgrading from current stable? Do we come up with a dhcpcd5 variant > that *only* touches interfaces it is directed to touch via > /etc/network/interfaces? Do we add udhcpcd to the "dhcp-client" virtual > package and/or make it the default for ifupdown? Do we fork isc's dhcp suite > and just continue to use dhclient? Revive pump? Something else? Not an answer to your question, but a related issue I'll mention here. Ubuntu no longer uses isc-dhcp by default, because it no longer uses ifupdown; NetworkManager and networkd both have their own implementations of dhcp clients which are used by preference. *However*, isc-dhcp is still installed as part of all Ubuntu systems, because it is the only client implementation that integrates with initramfs-tools (/usr/share/initramfs-tools/hooks/zz-dhclient) so if you are using nfsroot or any other network-based rootfs, it appears to still be the only game in town. It would be a good idea to make sure as part of the deprecation of isc-dhcp-client that we get initramfs integration of whatever is the preferred replacement. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: ifupdown/dhcp
08.05.2022 18:24, Michael Stone wrote: [apologies to package aliases getting this twice due to autocomplete fail] I've been trying to make sense of the NEWS item in isc-dhcp-client (that alternatives are needed) in combination with the functionality of ifupdown and what the implications are for debian upgrades generally. isc-dhcp-client as of the last upgrade is telling users to stop using it (the default dhcp client for debian). ifupdown (the traditional tool for managing networking on debian systems) has a Recommends on "isc-dhcp-client | dhcp-client". "dhcp-client" is a virtual package provided by "dhcpcanon" (version 0.8.5, which hasn't been touched in 4 years), "isc-dhcp-client", and "dhcpcd5" (which will trash a working configuration managed by ifupdown if installed, as it will try to take over interfaces currently set, e.g., to manual). This seems suboptimal at best. I believe that ifupdown will attempt to use udhcpd if installed, which should be a mostly-transparent change (except for the potential loss of lease information and any customization of dhclient scripts) but it isn't even on the ifupdown recommends list. Yes ifupdown knows about udhcpd. I dunno how seriuos this one is, the udhcpcd from busybox. We use it in many different cases locally, and a few times I used it on a regular linux client in various public networks, it is scriptable (it relies on the script to do the actual work). It is maintained, - well, hopefully, - and in debian, I maintained this package for quite some years locally before, next stepped up as debian maintainer of busybox package, and continue to maintain it locally for another several years. Recently I thought about giving it another try to make it in good shape in debian, and others are doing their work there too. busybox is recommended by initramfs-tools, so it is installed on all debian systems where install-recommends is not explicitly set to false, so it is always available, more or less (the udhcpcd package is just a symlink to busybox). But I never really thought about it as an alternative to "big" dhcp client. I dunno why, maybe because I always treated busybox as a "small brother" not ready for anything serious. Overall it just works, especially after some tweaks to its script. Maybe I should give it another try too, I dunno. What's up with ISC dhclient? Thanks, /mjt
Re: ifupdown/dhcp
On 2022-05-08 21:15:07 +0200 (+0200), Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote: > OpenBSD maintains its own fork of dhclient, just to list another > alternative. [...] Though OpenBSD added dhcpleased[*] last year, so I expect dhclient's days there are numbered too. [*] http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article;sid=20210722072359 -- Jeremy Stanley signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: ifupdown/dhcp
El 08/05/22 a las 11:24, Michael Stone escribió: > [apologies to package aliases getting this twice due to autocomplete fail] > > I've been trying to make sense of the NEWS item in isc-dhcp-client (that > alternatives are needed) in combination with the functionality of ifupdown > and what the implications are for debian upgrades generally. > > isc-dhcp-client as of the last upgrade is telling users to stop using it > (the default dhcp client for debian). > > ifupdown (the traditional tool for managing networking on debian systems) > has a Recommends on "isc-dhcp-client | dhcp-client". "dhcp-client" is a > virtual package provided by "dhcpcanon" (version 0.8.5, which hasn't been > touched in 4 years), "isc-dhcp-client", and "dhcpcd5" (which will trash a > working configuration managed by ifupdown if installed, as it will try to > take over interfaces currently set, e.g., to manual). This seems suboptimal > at best. > > I believe that ifupdown will attempt to use udhcpd if installed, which > should be a mostly-transparent change (except for the potential loss of > lease information and any customization of dhclient scripts) but it isn't > even on the ifupdown recommends list. > > ifupdown also (used to?) use pump, but that package went away a long time > ago. > > So what's the path forward, maintaining compatibility and not breaking > systems upgrading from current stable? Do we come up with a dhcpcd5 variant > that *only* touches interfaces it is directed to touch via > /etc/network/interfaces? Do we add udhcpcd to the "dhcp-client" virtual > package and/or make it the default for ifupdown? Do we fork isc's dhcp suite > and just continue to use dhclient? Revive pump? Something else? > OpenBSD maintains its own fork of dhclient, just to list another alternative. I haven't been able to take the time to work on this, but it is on the top of my ToDo list. Cheers, -- S signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: ifupdown/dhcp
Hi Michael, On Sun, May 08, 2022 at 11:24:12AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > So what's the path forward, maintaining compatibility and not breaking > systems upgrading from current stable? Do we come up with a dhcpcd5 variant > that *only* touches interfaces it is directed to touch via > /etc/network/interfaces? Do we add udhcpcd to the "dhcp-client" virtual > package and/or make it the default for ifupdown? Do we fork isc's dhcp suite > and just continue to use dhclient? Revive pump? Something else? I use some very customized dhclient hook scripts that I don't want to give up so I've been concerned about this situation ever since the EOM announcment myself. Certainly I don't want it (or at least dhclient) to be removed from Debian. The problem is all of the other dhcp clients that have scripting support also have problematic maintainance situations. For example dhcpcd's maintainer has serious health problems and is looking for someone to take over (no one has AFAICT), dribbler (used to be in Debian IIRC) is "concluded" and that's pretty much it for non v6-only dhcp clients you can script. On the v6 end wide-dhcpv6 doesn't look to fresh either though. I've tried reaching out to ISC a while ago to see what our options are in terms of perhaps keeping the code upstream but disabling it there so we can keep maintaining it in Debian. Unfortunately they are not interested in doing that. However they would be open to pointing people to a project to keep dhclient/relay alive in their release notes. So I've been thinking about setting up at least a mailing-list to gather people interested in seeing this happen since I don't think I'll be able to have time to do it all by myself. --Daniel
ifupdown/dhcp
[apologies to package aliases getting this twice due to autocomplete fail] I've been trying to make sense of the NEWS item in isc-dhcp-client (that alternatives are needed) in combination with the functionality of ifupdown and what the implications are for debian upgrades generally. isc-dhcp-client as of the last upgrade is telling users to stop using it (the default dhcp client for debian). ifupdown (the traditional tool for managing networking on debian systems) has a Recommends on "isc-dhcp-client | dhcp-client". "dhcp-client" is a virtual package provided by "dhcpcanon" (version 0.8.5, which hasn't been touched in 4 years), "isc-dhcp-client", and "dhcpcd5" (which will trash a working configuration managed by ifupdown if installed, as it will try to take over interfaces currently set, e.g., to manual). This seems suboptimal at best. I believe that ifupdown will attempt to use udhcpd if installed, which should be a mostly-transparent change (except for the potential loss of lease information and any customization of dhclient scripts) but it isn't even on the ifupdown recommends list. ifupdown also (used to?) use pump, but that package went away a long time ago. So what's the path forward, maintaining compatibility and not breaking systems upgrading from current stable? Do we come up with a dhcpcd5 variant that *only* touches interfaces it is directed to touch via /etc/network/interfaces? Do we add udhcpcd to the "dhcp-client" virtual package and/or make it the default for ifupdown? Do we fork isc's dhcp suite and just continue to use dhclient? Revive pump? Something else?
