This is the kind of frustration that gives rise to new open-source
projects (or at least did in a by-gone era). How badly do you want this
fixed?
You are correct, the art of the command-line is disappearing. Systemd on
7 is painfully rubbish.
Thanks for sharing your trials and tribulations. It made my morning to
commiserate.
Good luck!
On 04/08/17 22:59, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 5:36 PM, ~Stack~ <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Greetings,
>> I will spare the details, but suffice to say I am in a position where
>> after many years knowing the 'network' commands I've been tasked to
>> learn nmcli much better than I do now. This is all on SL7.
> Oh, you poor beggar. I feel your pain. Notes that I published years
> ago for CentOS 5 and CentOS 6 pair bonding just went obsolete, in
> completely undocumented and unintelligible ways, with upstream RHEL 7
> and Fedora's fascination with "NetworkManager" instead of anything
> stable or scriptable. I feel your pain a *lot*.
>
>> I've been reading documents, building and tearing down networks for
>> hours, and trying to put into practice what I'm learning (still a long
>> way to go; haven't touched the infiniband parts yet). Something keeps
>> coming up in documentation that bothers me.
>>
>> Here is an example of one of *many* documents:
>> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/Networking_Guide/sec-Network_Configuration_Using_sysconfig_Files.html
>>
>> They mention taking down a network with:
>> $ nmcli dev disconnect interface-name
>>
>> but bringing it up with:
>> $ nmcli con up interface-name
>>
>> That is so infuriating to me. Why use different sub-commands? Especially
>> when there exist subcommands in the same context? Why not do this?
>> $ nmcli dev disconnect interface-name
>> $ nmcli dev connect interface-name
> Because they're trying to weld NetworkManagers's graphical interface,
> on top of poorly integrated command line interface, on top of the
> actual underlying bash scripts that do the real work. It's Fugly Out
> There(tm). NetworkManager for RHEL 7, and thus for CentOS 7, even
> introduced the concept of parsing multiple infividual ifcfg-* files to
> manage the same actual device, such as multiple file to manage
> ifcfg-eth0 in ifcfg-eth0 and ifcfg-ethp-slave. The result is madness.
>
> In case it's unclear I am *not* happy with NetworkManager for servers
> or stable environments. Laptops that have to wander from environment
> to environment need multiple VPN's, yeah, OK, I can see having a more
> complex tool. But for a VM? Or a server?
>
> I'd like to introduce you to wone of my favorite settins for
> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-* files, or even for
> /etc/sysconfig/network, or if you feel really paranoid, /etc/profile.
>
> NM_CONTROLLED=no
>
> Turn *off* NetworkManager manipulation for anything that doesn't need it.
>
>> Or even this?
>> $ nmcli con down interface-name
>> $ nmcli con up interface-name
>>
>> As far as I can tell, they are both doing the same thing. In fact the
>> only difference I can tell comes from the nmcli help documentation where
>> it says the difference is in the auto-activating:
>>
>> $ nmcli d disconnect --help
>> <snip>
>> The command disconnects the device and prevents it from auto-activating
>> further connections without user/manual intervention.
>>
>> $ nmcli connection down --help
>> <snip>
>> Deactivate a connection from a device (without preventing the device
>> from further auto-activation). <snip>
>>
>>
>> If it was just one document, then whatever. But I've seen that in
>> several of the RH documents as well as on several blogs/webpages. What
>> am I missing? What is the difference and why should I prefer to take
>> down a connection with "device disconnect" but bring it up with
>> "connection up"?
> See above. NetworkManger is a complex management layer un top of the
> actual "ifconfig" tools managed by the various
> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts, and for many operations it simply adds
> instability and confusion.
>
>> Thank you!
>> ~Stack~
>>
|
