Received: from mx1.tetrasec.net (mx1.tetrasec.net [66.245.176.36]) by nld3-dev1.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C817780FA6 for <~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org>; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:48:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.tetrasec.net (mail.local [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tetrasec.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 391FB11B73A; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:48:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.17.48.222] (068-187-202-164.res.spectrum.com [68.187.202.164]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nangel@tetrasec.net) by mx1.tetrasec.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CC93911B739; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:48:17 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <063af85d3d32f55476810245c64a869fc22a291d.camel@alpinelinux.org> Subject: Re: Proposed system change: ifupdown-ng as default network device manager From: Nathan Angelacos To: Ariadne Conill , Natanael Copa Cc: ~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 15:48:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4b92ee5b-9452-e319-5029-91d60ca95add@dereferenced.org> References: <12372156.q0HFhEdf7Z@localhost> <58043884-92aa-865f-03f7-59ec985d69b4@dereferenced.org> <20200821190151.6c9b4d90@ncopa-desktop.lan> <20200824095536.6425075c@ncopa-desktop.lan> <4b92ee5b-9452-e319-5029-91d60ca95add@dereferenced.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hey, I know this is an old thread, but just want to report in. This is my personal opinion, and just one data point. Take it for what it is worth. Ariadne- I want to explicitly state that I have *no* problem with moving to ifupdown-ng. --- The good - yes, ifupdown-ng does everything Alpine 3.12 does. The bad - I admit my network has cancer. So. I think I'm a pretty good candidate for several edge cases out there. I have(had) a home- baked HE-style ipv6 tunnel; multiple openvpn (ipv4/ipv6) tunnels; nhrp/rip/ospf[*] dhcpd-pd; wireguard; MACsec; wifi; wifi+babel; powerline; wifi+mesh+powerline... you name it, it is somewhere here. Basically, ifupdown-ng (as documented in the wiki) "works out of the tin" - except "when you don't have a tin", or "your tin looks more like a klein bottle" Action item: Documentation A number of the wiki pages talk about things like bonding/bridging/routing; and I think we are going to need to update those pages. It all works... but it works in different ways. I'll be happy to work on the wiki pages to document "The new way to do it is...." But I'd like some confirmation that's the right way to go. A) We document "The way it was with busybox", but now we use "ifupdown- ng" B) We delete the busybox stuff and replace with ifupdown-ng C) We leave both side-by side, and explain how you can install either. D) We do nothing E) ???? (And again ... Specifically to Ariadne- once I groked the -ng thing... Seriously - its cool. LOVE IT!)