Re: [Setup-tool-hackers] Network interfaces configuration.

[Arturo Espinosa Aldama <arturo mezcal dyndns org>]

For some reason, this went into my postponed-msgs folder and was never
sent... I think.

On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Hans Petter Jansson wrote:

> >> I think we should make a deliberate distinction between fixed networking and
> >> telephony connections. ppp[0-9] are virtual adapters at best, and I'm against
> >> virtual adapters in Networking.
>  
> > But why? Should the end-user bare with this distinction between virtual
> > and non-virtual?
> 
> Should the end-user bear with no distinction just because both are
> "interfaces"?

Well, what I thought is that all network interfaces should be grouped in
the networking tool. What is important is that we all get convinced about
the desitions we make, and that these are the best we can come up with.

> Rethoric aside, telephony networking requires very different data:
> 
> - It needs an account and password.
> 
> - It usually needs a telephone number.
> 
> - You can have several different accounts tied to this one "interface".

These can be provided with just an extra dialog and a button. All network
interfaces are different and require additional parameters: plip, ppp,
eth... you name it. Networking is not as simple and ellegant as having the
same dialog template for every interface.

I think ppp connections are part of networking. I'd regard telephony as
all the modem functions that are not related to connecting to the Internet
(or some intranet), such as phonebook dialing, faxing and voice functions.
Although I don't know if there is any common service or infrastructure
that may provide these, anyways.

> - It will be used in different locations, but is still location-dependent.
> 
> - It goes on and off.

Same as any other interface.

> - You can determine the on/off policy in idle time, redial holdoff, etc.

More interface-specific parameters.

> - You normally don't get a static IP (hence setting it up as you would a
>   fixed interface makes a lot less sense).

Well, nobody said all the interfaces' dialogs would look exactly the same.
Still, we can't ignore the possibility of static IP configuration.

> I can come up with more. Also, if I follow your argumentation, we should also
> put firewall-specific configuration in networking, and burden something that
> should be simple, with tunneling, forwarding and masquerading interfaces, as
> well as routing.

Remember that these tools are geared towards workstations. So maybe a
"routing" tab wouldn't be that bad, so that the user can select its
default gateway, and maybe a simple "share internet" check or something
like that, as this is now a common end-user need.

Or we will have to create a new tool regarding all of this, but then the
networking tool should be renamed to "Networking Interfaces", right? Maybe
the name of the tool got me all confused.

> I was thinking about doing the Telephony admin. Was that what you were
> thinking of doing, or did you mean revamping the Networking admin (what I
> though you meant at first)?

I mean revamping the networking admin, and I thought that included
support for ppp, plip, isdn and other kinds of interfaces. I also thought
some basic routing configuration would be required.

Greetings,
Arturo