Re: Is this the designed behaviour for NetworkManager



On Fri, 2016-03-04 at 10:19 +0000, Tim Coote wrote:
Hullo

I’m starting to migrate my fedora stock to NetworkManager. In one
particular test scenario, I tried to create a direct copy of the
final machine configuration using NM and the old "systemctl start
network” approach. The VMs are temporally separated (ie I spin up the
old one save interrogation results about configuration; kill it and
repeat with the new one).  The only differences between the two
machines should be the hostnames (so that the puppet configuration
knows them as different machines) and the mac addresses.

One inconsistency that I’ve found is that the NetworkManager cannot
seem to spin up a tunnel unless the ipv4 addresses differ between the
VMs. For the NM controlled VM, pulling apart the actual command run,
I see:
[code]
nmcli con up uuid 4a341ad1-3e31-7ee8-82ee-2019bf995ad8
<response>
Error: Connection activation failed: No suitable device found for
this connection.
[/code]

where the uuid represents the sit1 device. However, on the same VM
(either directly invoked or by turning off NM and running ifup sit1):
[code]
/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-sit sit1
[/code]

spins up the tunnel.

If I put the ‘copy’ VM on different IP address(es). NM seems happy to
spin up the tunnel. Note that in both cases there are no conflicting
computers/ip addresses on the network at the same time.

Am I (probabably) seeing the intended behaviour for NM - in which
case I need to modify my testing approach - or do I need to dig
further to confirm a bug?

tia

Hi,


which version of NetworkManager?

what gives
  nmcli connection show 4a341ad1-3e31-7ee8-82ee-2019bf995ad8
and how does the corresponding ifcfg-file look?
  cat /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-*


Thanks,
Thomas

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]