Re: network vs NetworkManger services ?? [SOLVED] kinda
Thanks for your time and thoughtful explanation Marko; On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 20:49 +, Marko Vojinovic wrote: > Ok, can I give it a try to help clear things up? Not that I am an expert on > the subject, but hopefully... :-) Somebody please correct me if I get > something wrong here. [BIG SNIP] I have copied and pasted your explanation into the notes I am keeping. You come close to describing what I have come to understand over the last week. It would probably been more clear if I had had system => networking => connections showing in my gconf-editor. Now I have to figure out how to fix that. I think I will start with a yum remove and yum install gconf-editor. I am not sure whether networking data was in there originally and got removed by my messing around, or was never there. -- Regards Bill; Fedora 9, Gnome 2.22.3 Evo.2.22.3.1, Emacs 22.2.1 -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: network vs NetworkManger services ?? [SOLVED] kinda
Ok, can I give it a try to help clear things up? Not that I am an expert on the subject, but hopefully... :-) Somebody please correct me if I get something wrong here. When we speak of "network", there are several layers at work here. First, there is hardware. Cables, network cards at their ends and such. Your particular host machine may have two network cards, for example (wired and wireless, typically for a laptop). These network cards, the *hardware*, are called "network interfaces". They are present in your computer whether you like it or not, and can have a "state", for example they can be "active" or "inactive" and such. Next there is the kernel. It has drivers and other software to communicate with other computers using the network cards, ie. interfaces. This software (inside the kernel) encompasses various protocols, firewall, settings, parameters etc. You may wish to take a look at /proc/net for a feel of it. The kernel is responsible for actual communication, it holds inside the settings such as IP number of each interface, its current state and such. Then there are various utilities that are used to setup and configure these settings in the kernel. It goes along the way of conversation like: utility: "Please, could you set the IP for eth0 interface to be 10.0.0.1?" kernel: "Ok, it is set, from now on eth0 operates with this IP." utility: "Please, could you drop any udp packets coming from 1.2.3.4 if they are not a response to an outgoing connection?" kernel: "Ok, the appropriate firewall rule is set up." utility: "Please, could you tell me if wlan0 interface is active and configured?" kernel: "No, the wlan0 interface is not active, but is configured." (I hope you get the idea.) Various utilities are used to set up various aspects of communication. These utilities include ifconfig, ip, iptables, arp, rarp, tc, and so on. These utilities also have appropriate config files which they consult when asking the kernel to do this or that. Some of these config files reside under /etc/sysconfig/network*, while other reside elsewhere (for example, resolv.conf resides in /etc). Now here is the catch. There may be more than one utility to perform the same configuration of network interfaces. These utilities that do equivalent job may have config files that differ or contradict each other. This means that *only one* of those should be used, in order to avoid potential havoc. At this point let me simplify a bit --- there are basically *two* utilities that do this on a Fedora system. One is the script /etc/init.d/network (go take a look at it) which does its job by looking at appropriate config files (those in /etc/sysconfig/network*) and calls some executables (like /sbin/ip) to do the job. Another is the NetworkManager, which has its config files elsewhere and does all on its own or uses other executables (or maybe the same?). Now having, say, two network interfaces on the system, you may choose to configure for example eth0 using the /etc/init.d/network, while wlan0 using NetworkManager. This is ok, as long as you say to *both* of these services to "ignore the other interface". As for /etc/init.d/network, you tell it to ignore wlan0 by starting system-config-network gui and clicking appropriate checkmark, or manually editing a file under /etc/sysconfig/network*. As for NetworkManager I don't know, but guess that there should be some way to tell it to ignore some interface (btw, the system-config-network gui has *absolutely nothing* to do with NetworkManager --- it is merely a gui for the files under /etc/sysconfig/network* which NM doesn't use at all). Given all this, if you configure everything properly, you would want *both* NetworkManager service and network service active under system-config-services. But it is usually easier to configure only one of them for all interfaces and shut down the other, in order to avoid confusion. Which one you would want to use is up to your preference and needs, because the two tools use different paradigms to function and one may be better suited over the other for a particular task. Hence both are included in Fedora. Having all that in mind, you should be aware that there is no daemon to control the network --- the kernel does this, and these utilities merely communicate to the kernel to ask for this or that behavior. This means that you can use one tool (NM) to configure eth0 interface, and then use another (service network status) to ask the kernel for the status of eth0. This is why the sequence # service network stop # service network status gives you the output that seems confusing at first glance. The NetworkManager has configured and activated eth0, so it is active no matter that service network is stopped. Service network is probably configured not to touch eth0 (because it is serviced by NM) so when you say "stop" it doesn't stop eth0, but rather ignores it. This is the action of the appropriate
Re: network vs NetworkManger services ?? [SOLVED] kinda
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 23:29 -0400, William Case wrote: > Hi Patrick; > > As I said I am now satisfied that a conflict between some entity called > 'network' or NM is the cause of my problems. So some of this discussion > is a bit moot. > > On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 20:15 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 18:41 -0400, William Case wrote: > > > So why can't I get rid of 'network' entirely? I understand that > > > 'network' is not an application to be removed, but something is > > > sticking it in the list of services. With NetworkManager running, > > > 'network' is not a service I need. So why confuse the issue? > > > > Bill, if your question is "why do I get a network status report when I > > invoke 'service network status'?" the answer is that the status is > > simply a report on the state of the various interfaces. It has nothing > > whatever to do with you using system-config-network. > > > It seems that the word 'network' is being used in two different > senses. At least two, correct. > If I look at system-config-services I see what looks like an entity > (program, application or process) that can be enabled, disabled, > started, stopped or restarted as can its alternate NetworkManager. I > supposed that that entity (network) was what I was looking at with the > command service network status. To me "entity" implies a single thing, which it clearly isn't. The *network service* is a set of related "entities", and if you look at system-config-network this is fairly explicit. > But it seems with the service network status command the word network is > simply a generalized reference to any network. So be it, but it is > confusing. No, it's not even that. The status command shows you the state of your network interfaces, that's all. It says nothing about the various networks you are connected to (that would be another meaning of "network"). > If this second meaning is true, it would make far more sense if > 'network' was not listed as running in system-config-services. Or had > another name such as 'default_networking' (poor choice but ...) that > would assign some definition and distinction to it. "networking" would be clearer perhaps. poc -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: network vs NetworkManger services ?? [SOLVED] kinda
Hi Patrick; As I said I am now satisfied that a conflict between some entity called 'network' or NM is the cause of my problems. So some of this discussion is a bit moot. On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 20:15 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 18:41 -0400, William Case wrote: > > So why can't I get rid of 'network' entirely? I understand that > > 'network' is not an application to be removed, but something is > > sticking it in the list of services. With NetworkManager running, > > 'network' is not a service I need. So why confuse the issue? > > Bill, if your question is "why do I get a network status report when I > invoke 'service network status'?" the answer is that the status is > simply a report on the state of the various interfaces. It has nothing > whatever to do with you using system-config-network. > It seems that the word 'network' is being used in two different senses. If I look at system-config-services I see what looks like an entity (program, application or process) that can be enabled, disabled, started, stopped or restarted as can its alternate NetworkManager. I supposed that that entity (network) was what I was looking at with the command service network status. But it seems with the service network status command the word network is simply a generalized reference to any network. So be it, but it is confusing. If this second meaning is true, it would make far more sense if 'network' was not listed as running in system-config-services. Or had another name such as 'default_networking' (poor choice but ...) that would assign some definition and distinction to it. > If that's not your question, I'm at a loss to understand what it is. > -- Regards Bill; Fedora 9, Gnome 2.22.3 Evo.2.22.3.1, Emacs 22.2.1 -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: network vs NetworkManger services ?? [SOLVED] kinda
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 18:41 -0400, William Case wrote: > So why can't I get rid of 'network' entirely? I understand that > 'network' is not an application to be removed, but something is > sticking it in the list of services. With NetworkManager running, > 'network' is not a service I need. So why confuse the issue? Bill, if your question is "why do I get a network status report when I invoke 'service network status'?" the answer is that the status is simply a report on the state of the various interfaces. It has nothing whatever to do with you using system-config-network. If that's not your question, I'm at a loss to understand what it is. Cheers poc -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: network vs NetworkManger services ?? [SOLVED] kinda
William Case wrote: > > So why can't I get rid of 'network' entirely? I understand that > 'network' is not an application to be removed, but something is sticking > it in the list of services. With NetworkManager running, 'network' is > not a service I need. So why confuse the issue? > It is handy for people that need the network to be up when no-one is logged in. On my desktop, I use the network service instead of hte NetworkManager service because there are a couple of cron jobs that need the network connection. I may not be logged in all the time, but the computer normally runs 24/7. Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: network vs NetworkManger services ?? [SOLVED] kinda
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 18:41 -0400, William Case wrote: > On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 17:57 -0400, Matthew Saltzman wrote: > > On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 17:10 -0400, William Case wrote: > > > Thank you Matthew. That was why I was double checking. > [snip] > > To ensure that the network service does not run at boot, run 'chkconfig > > network off' as root. If the network service is stopped, it may still > > report active interfaces, even if they are being managed by > > NetworkManager. > > Ran 'chkconfig' etc.. It reports everything at every run level is off. > > So I can safely say it is not having an effect on anything and that any > issues lie elsewhere. The following question is just a 'by-the-way' > curiosity. > > So why can't I get rid of 'network' entirely? I understand that > 'network' is not an application to be removed, but something is sticking > it in the list of services. With NetworkManager running, 'network' is > not a service I need. So why confuse the issue? > It can be removed but turning it off with chkconfig will keep it from running at boot, which should be sufficient to keep it from bothering you. -- === You don't have to explain something you never said. -- Calvin Coolidge === Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: network vs NetworkManger services ?? [SOLVED] kinda
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 17:57 -0400, Matthew Saltzman wrote: > On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 17:10 -0400, William Case wrote: > > Thank you Matthew. That was why I was double checking. [snip] > To ensure that the network service does not run at boot, run 'chkconfig > network off' as root. If the network service is stopped, it may still > report active interfaces, even if they are being managed by > NetworkManager. Ran 'chkconfig' etc.. It reports everything at every run level is off. So I can safely say it is not having an effect on anything and that any issues lie elsewhere. The following question is just a 'by-the-way' curiosity. So why can't I get rid of 'network' entirely? I understand that 'network' is not an application to be removed, but something is sticking it in the list of services. With NetworkManager running, 'network' is not a service I need. So why confuse the issue? -- Regards Bill; Fedora 9, Gnome 2.22.3 Evo.2.22.3.1, Emacs 22.2.1 -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
