On Feb 25, 2014 10:40 AM, "Canek Peláez Valdés" <can...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 5:38 AM, Nicolas Sebrecht <nsebre...@piing.fr> wrote: > > [snip] > > > The way systemd services handle network whatever "network manager" you > > enable is the last thing preventing me from using systemd on servers. > > Seting up manual advanced setups on systemd looks crappy (if even > > possible with the provided tools) compared to OpenRC. > > > > Notice that iproute2 is the default everywhere for long time, here. > > > > The OpenRC comprehensive configuration set for network management is > > actually what I would expect in systemd. > > Perhaps they are starting small? I don't know; from what I've read, > they want something small for simple cases, and if you need more you > can use NetworkManager, connman, iproute2, or whatever. > > But then you had to configure it yourself. > > [snip] > > >> And, by the way, someone make me notice that netctl is an Arch'ism, > >> and that the command-line front-end for networkd is actually > >> networkctl. > > > > Yes, it was taken from Arch in order to allow better network support for > > advanced configurations whitout requiring to write yet another tool. > > Nothing was taken from Arch, I believe. networkctl and netctl had > nothing to do with each other. > > > The thing is that I would expect systemd to handle the whole thing on > > its own (with the help of iproute2) so that services have nice > > grain-level dependencies. > > If someone writes support for this and convinces the systemd > maintainers that is a good idea, I think they would accept the > patches.
BTW, here is an overview of networkd by its author: https://coreos.com/blog/intro-to-systemd-networkd/ Regards.
