Re: [gentoo] NetworkManager and conf.d files

[Antony J Mee <A J Mee ncl ac uk>]

On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 08:26 +0100, Frederic Detienne wrote:
> Problem 2 -- null vs. dhcp
> ---------
> 
> I would like NetworkManager to acquire an IP address for my wireless
> interface through DHCP. OTOH, I would like Gentoo net scripts to NOT do
> that at all since the gentoo scripts have no idea how to associate to
> the AP's I use (in particular, there is not machine authentication, just
> WPA user authentication on my APs).
> 
> If I set up
> 
> config_eth1=( "dhcp" )
> 
> then gentoo tries to get a DHCP address at boot and I get:
> 
>  * Starting eth1
>  *   Bringing up eth1
>  *     dhcp
>  *       Running dhcpcd ...
> Error, timed out waiting for a valid DHCP server response         [ !! ]
> 
> Besides, dhcpcd sometimes keep running and hijacks DHCP responses that
> should normally go to dhcbdb/dhclient (i.e. two dhcp client running at
> the same time for the same interface).
> 
> Now if I set up
> 
> config_eth1=( "null" )
> 
> I do not get any annoying boot messages nor long delays and dhcpcd is
> never launched... but NetworkManager does not launch dhclient after
> wpa_supplicant either. And though the interface is properly associated,
> I obviously do not get an IP address.
> 
> Now my question: what should I use for a proper configuration ?

I go one step further...
   /etc/init.d/net.eth* are symlinks to /etc/init.d/net.lo

Until Gentoo base-layout becomes a little more NM friendly I just delete
the symlinks and thus only the NetworkManager init script gets started
for my interfaces.  I imagine it will stay that way until one of us
makes the net.lo NetworkManager friendly.

I'd love to hear what others do here though.  Steev perhaps?

> I understand NM 0.7 may bring the ability to control interfaces
> directly... in that case, it should support
> 
> 1- specific interface parameters to be set (here, bringing the radio up)
> 2- configuration override (here, system-wide net config saying "null"
> but still have NM start dhclient)
> 
> but there may already be a way to do this cleanly today. Can anyone help
> me ?

I'd love to hear some kind of status update on that stuff too if anybody
would like to volunteer it!

tOnY