[systemd-devel] [PATCH 17/17] networkd: add dhcp server support

[Lennart Poettering]

On Tue, 27.05.14 13:39, David Herrmann (dh.herrmann at gmail.com) wrote:

> Hi
> 
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Michael Biebl <mbiebl at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2014-05-27 4:38 GMT+02:00 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek at in.waw.pl>:
> >> before looking at the code, a couple of general questions:
> >> - does the DHCP server have to be part of networkd? Isn't the job
> >>   of acquiring addresses and giving out addresses separate and shouldn't
> >>   two different processes be responsible?
> >
> > I have to agree with Zbigniew here. This looks like feature creep.
> 
> I strongly disagree. One major example is Wifi-P2P which requires a
> DHCP-Server for ad-hoc P2P connections. A network-daemon manages the
> local address-space, so it should also be responsible of assigning
> those ranges to an ad-hoc DHCP server.
> 
> In most current network-solutions it is awfully hard to integrate
> ad-hoc DHCP networks. Yes, everyone can configure a static
> pre-assigned DHCP range, but that's not going to work with dynamically
> created networks. This includes p2p-connections like Wifi-P2P, but
> also stuff like tethering, virtual devices and containers.
> 
> Besides, the DHCP-server implementation isn't that much more complex

> than the client-side. I mean ConnMan requires ~1000 lines for that, I
> haven't looked at Toms patches so far, though. I'd really like to hear
> why exactly you guys think this is feature-creep?

Fully agree.

In many ways, if people complain about a dhcp server in networkd, then
it's like complaining about the fact that pppd also can assign addresses
to the other side...

Michael, Cristian, I don't see you complaining about the IP assigning
bits in pppd either!  ;-)

If we set up links (and especially, create them like
we do for veth), then hel, yeah we should be prepared to make sure
everybody gets an address on it. 

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat