[Bug 1567440] Re: debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

[Martin Pitt]

Many thanks for fixing this! I filed bug 1567874 with a small leftover.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1567440

Title:
  debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1567440/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

[Bug 1567440] Re: debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

[Launchpad Bug Tracker]

This bug was fixed in the package lxd - 2.0.0~rc9-0ubuntu3

---
lxd (2.0.0~rc9-0ubuntu3) xenial; urgency=medium

  * More lxdbr0 tweaks:
- Generate a random IPv4 and IPv6 subnet and pre-fill the questions
  with it at interactive configuration time. (LP: #1567440)
- Point users towards dpkg-reconfigure if lxd init can't be run.

 -- Stéphane Graber   Thu, 07 Apr 2016 15:26:33
-0400

** Changed in: lxd (Ubuntu)
   Status: Confirmed => Fix Released

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1567440

Title:
  debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1567440/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

[Bug 1567440] Re: debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

[Stéphane Graber]

Ok, so just had a pretty good chat with Martin, conclusion is that we will:
 - Make use of the debconf "seen" flag to check whether we are running 
interactively or not
 - If running interactively and no configuration was previously set, set both 
IPv4 and IPv6 to "yes"
 - Show a warning message to the user in both the IPv4 and IPv6 case telling 
them that a random subnet was picked for them and that if it's used somewhere 
on their network, they will need to change it to something else.
 - Show the user the pre-filled values.

The intent is that a user can just keep pressing enter in dpkg-
reconfigure and they'll be getting working IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity.
However a non-interactive clean package install WILL NOT pick any subnet
and so will not risk breaking connectivity for the user.

When saying "random" above, we will make a best effort to pick something
that's not already in use but make no promises at succeeding, so that's
why we will keep referring to it as "random".

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1567440

Title:
  debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1567440/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

[Bug 1567440] Re: debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

[Stéphane Graber]

You are right that we don't actually have to ask the user to pre-fill
some random values. We should however show a warning explaining that
those values may conflict with their network and that they should take a
close look at them.

So basically the change I would do is: When selecting Yes to the "enable
IPv4" or "enable IPv6" questions, and no subnet was already set on the
bridge, show the warning message, then pick a random local subnet
(RFC1918 for IPv4, local scope for IPv6) and set it. Then continue as
usual which will show all the values to the user.


Detecting whether the subnet is in use locally is just broken, there is no way 
to know whether the subnet is used behind your router and doing IPv4 masking 
math from a shell script is near impossible so say if you have 10.0.0.0/17 
routed, 10.0.3.0/24 is a very bad idea, but figuring that out is a pain. So I 
would rather we don't pretend to be smart and just be consistently random so 
people don't depend on us being smart 50% of the time.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1567440

Title:
  debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1567440/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

[Bug 1567440] Re: debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

[Dustin Kirkland ]

** Changed in: lxd (Ubuntu)
   Importance: Undecided => High

** Changed in: lxd (Ubuntu)
   Status: New => Confirmed

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1567440

Title:
  debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1567440/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

[Bug 1567440] Re: debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

[Martin Pitt]

> with a pretty big warning that if you are somehow using those subnets,
this will break your network.

But the .config script can tell if there's an existing interface/network
with that subnet?

> That would mean two more questions though

Why two new ones? I think we should repurpose the current first question
and just not ask about all the network details if you say "yes" and go
with the default bridge config (assuming that 10.0.3.x isn't taken yet).
That would be one question for pretty much all cases, and one note about
"you need to configure the bridge yourself because 10.0.3.x is already
being used" plus the existing details question in the 1% corner case.

> we really should still show all the values to the user so they can
check that they are sane and have a chance to change them.

OK, if you want to do that, then I don't see which additional questions
you want to ask at all?

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1567440

Title:
  debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1567440/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

[Bug 1567440] Re: debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

[Stéphane Graber]

We could add a "seed with default values" option for both IPv4 and IPv6
which sets everything to the suggested values with a pretty big warning
that if you are somehow using those subnets, this will break your
network.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1567440

Title:
  debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1567440/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

[Bug 1567440] Re: debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

[Stéphane Graber]

That would mean two more questions though (one for IPv4, one for IPv6)
as we really should still show all the values to the user so they can
check that they are sane and have a chance to change them.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1567440

Title:
  debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1567440/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

[Bug 1567440] Re: debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

[Martin Pitt]

> We also can't default on any subnet, that's the whole point of lxdbr0,
defaulting on a subnet has been breaking user network in the past

How is that, OOI? postinst/debconf/etc. should certainly check if
there's an existing 10.0.3.x network already, and not set up a default
lxdbr0 then (or use a different IP). I. e. were these breakages because
of conflicts with an existing network in that range, or something else?

> We do suggest a subnet in all those questions though, typing in those
values will get you working networking.

Could the input lines at least be pre-filled with those, instead of/in
addition to showing them in the text?

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1567440

Title:
  debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1567440/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

[Bug 1567440] Re: debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

[Stéphane Graber]

I'll try to find a way to get debconf to empty the bridge name when
switching from a LXD configured bridge to you providing one. The same
debconf variable is used for both which is why you saw lxdbr0 pre-seeded
in there, but I should be able to detect that case and have it emptied.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1567440

Title:
  debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1567440/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

[Bug 1567440] Re: debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

[Martin Pitt]

> We can't do what you suggest because LXD is pre-installed in a bunch
of images and picking a default subnet there is going to break
networking.

No, no, I don't mean on package install time, but at the time you run
"dpkg-reconfigure lxd" . I understand that/why we can't set up the
bridge by default, I'd just like to make it humanly possible to actually
*do* configure a working bridge without being a network pro and having
to type tons of IP addresses.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1567440

Title:
  debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1567440/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

[Bug 1567440] Re: debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

[Martin Pitt]

Now that I read the initial debconf note three times I think I know what
the difference between "yes" and "no" is. But "Do you want LXD to setup
a network bridge for you?" does not encourage me to select "no", and the
default is "yes" too.

But "yes" leads you into this trap of having to specify all those gory
details manually.

OTOH, saying "no" and using lxcbr0 works on my laptop, but in a fresh
cloud image the question about which existing bridge to use defaults to
"lxdbr0", and if I select that nothing happens because lxdbr0 does not
actually exist. But there is no error message in debconf either to say
"this bridge does not exist".

May I suggest to structure this differently? The first question should
be something like "Do you want to set up a bridge for LXD with default
parameters? If you say "no" here, you can enter the IP configuration of
the bridge manually", default to "yes", and do what lxcbr0 always used
to. There can even be some checks if a 10.0.3.0/24 network already
exists, and it can pick 10.0.4.0/24. And only if you select the non-
default "no" you can then enter all those gory details. These should
still have default values for what lxcbr0 used to have, so that you have
something to start from. Particularly it should generate a valid IPv6
address.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1567440

Title:
  debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1567440/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

[Bug 1567440] Re: debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

[Stéphane Graber]

We can't do what you suggest because LXD is pre-installed in a bunch of
images and picking a default subnet there is going to break networking.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1567440

Title:
  debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1567440/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

[Bug 1567440] Re: debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

[Stéphane Graber]

Hmm, the fact that you had lxcbr0 was probably a bug in a previous
migration script, it should have been lxdbr0.

We can't use lxcbr0 because on most systems lxc1 will be marked for
auto-removal after upgrading to the lxd version which brings lxdbr0, so
at configuration time the bridge would still be there, but 10min later,
not so much.

We also can't default on any subnet, that's the whole point of lxdbr0,
defaulting on a subnet has been breaking user network in the past and is
exactly why we were told not to do that anymore. We do suggest a subnet
in all those questions though, typing in those values will get you
working networking.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1567440

Title:
  debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1567440/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

[Bug 1567440] Re: debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

[Stéphane Graber]

As for the first debconf question, it was a request from
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1566764 but it sounds
like you got the updated prompt already.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1567440

Title:
  debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1567440/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

[Bug 1567440] Re: debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

[Martin Pitt]

** Description changed:

  After installing current lxd (I purged it before, so any previous
- configuration should be done) the networking in the containers does not
+ configuration should be gone) the networking in the containers does not
  work at all, not even with apt-get update (as it seems it can't even
  reach the default Debian mirror).
  
  So I went with "dpkg-reconfigure lxd" as advertised on the postinst
  note.
  
  The first question is ambiguous: "Choosing this option will let you
  configure the default LXD bridge to your liking. If you would rather not
  have LXD do this for you, then you will be asked whether you want to use
  an existing bridge or just do everything manually." The default is
  "yes", so I picked that as I indeed want some default LXD bridge.
  
  Now it asks me for "a valid network interface name", defaulting to
  lxcbr0. This might be because I have lxc1 still installed, or this is an
  upgrade or so, but either way, using lxcbr0 seems totally fine -- that's
  what is already preconfigured and has worked well for a long time and
  allows me to connect lxc and lxd containers.
  
  So I go with "lxcbr0", but now it asks me a gazillion questions about IP
  addresses, masks, ask me to come up with a valid IPv6 address (how do I
  do that, and pick one that's valid, private, and not overlapping with
  something else?) None of these questions have defaults. Moreover, lxcbr0
  is already configured, so if I would put in different values then lxc
  and lxd probably just stomp on each other's feet?
  
  ProblemType: Bug
  DistroRelease: Ubuntu 16.04
  Package: lxd 2.0.0~rc8-0ubuntu7
  ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 4.4.0-17.33-generic 4.4.6
  Uname: Linux 4.4.0-17-generic x86_64
  ApportVersion: 2.20.1-0ubuntu1
  Architecture: amd64
  CurrentDesktop: i3
  Date: Thu Apr  7 15:01:25 2016
  EcryptfsInUse: Yes
  SourcePackage: lxd
  UpgradeStatus: No upgrade log present (probably fresh install)

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1567440

Title:
  debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1567440/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

[Bug 1567440] Re: debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

[Martin Pitt]

It turns out that if I answer "no" to the first question, it only asks
me about using an existing bridge. I leave the default lxcbr0, then I
get networking back in containers.

So *if* lxcbr0 exists, I suggest using that by default in lxd -- I can't
imagine a situation where you would *not* want to use that bridge and
instead the non-working unconfigured network by default. And if lxcbr0
does not exist, could debconf have a mode to just set up lxdbr0 with
default values like we used to have for lxcbr0? And maybe allow
customization with -plow and followup questions if you say "no" to
"configure the default LXD bridge"?

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1567440

Title:
  debconf for bridge configuration is confusing and too complicated

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1567440/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs