| 1 |
William Hubbs dixit (2010-09-20, 11:16): |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I want to start a new thread since the discussion on openrc is |
| 4 |
> centering on whether we should use oldnet, newnet, or keep both. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> The drawback I see for newnet is that it does not allow the user to |
| 7 |
> control each interface separately, so if you want to cycle one |
| 8 |
> interface for some reason, this is not doable in that setup. I |
| 9 |
> agree this is a serious drawback. Oldnet addresses this by having a |
| 10 |
> separate script for each interface. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> The thing I do not like about oldnet is the way it handles wifi and |
| 13 |
> dynamic interfaces by running dhcpcd and wpa_supplicant on each |
| 14 |
> interface instead of running a global instance of them so that they |
| 15 |
> can control the interfaces themselves. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> On my laptop, I have net.lo in the boot runlevel, and I start |
| 18 |
> wpa_supplicant and dhcpcd in the default runlevel. In that setup, |
| 19 |
> there is no need for any net.wlan* interface scriptss, because |
| 20 |
> dhcpcd and wpa_supplicant manage everything. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Does that support configurations where I set static addresses |
| 23 |
(including ipv6) and routes (also including ipv6) based on the SSID as |
| 24 |
is allowed by the oldnet scheme of things? I (and probably lots other |
| 25 |
“power users”) rely on those features extensively and I thank whoever |
| 26 |
came up with the idea of actually configuring that in a pretty simple |
| 27 |
way (compared to other distros and OS'es where it is more complicated |
| 28 |
or plain impossible sometimes). |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Best, |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
[a] |
Archives