Re: wip-netlink

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello,

Marius Bakke <address@hidden> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> If you’ve ever experienced the shortcomings of
>> ‘static-networking-service’ and had to work around it, please share the
>> interface that you’d like to see!
>
> Hey, that's me!

Yay!

> I *think* what I want is control over network interfaces.  Something
> along the lines of
>
> (service network-interface-service-type
>   "eth0"
>   (network-interface-configuration
>     (dhcp? #f)
>     (ipv4 '("10.1.1.1/24" "172.16.30.4/22"))
>     (ipv6 '(...))
>     (routes4 '(("default" . "10.1.1.254")))
>     (routes6 '(...))
>     (requirement '(vswitchd))))
>
> Ideally, this service would extend "network-route-service-type" and
> "network-address-service-type" so that one could compose configurations
> from other services too.  E.g. a custom VPN service that extends
> network-route-service-type.

Interesting!  That sounds like a plan.

If there’s a separate “routes” service, perhaps the ‘routes4’ and
‘routes6’ fields could even be removed from
‘network-interface-configuration’?

We’d also need a ‘name-servers’ service I guess.

Also, in your example, ‘ipv4’ specifies both the IP and the netmask,
right?  Perhaps we should separate the two?

Thanks,
Ludo’.