a first look but systemd networking sucks

So after this (my blog) i decided to see if could reproduce the config in systemd something i loathe (my blog).

to recap eth0 – dhcp, eth0:1 et al static ip config

networkctl
WARNING: systemd-networkd is not running, output will be incomplete.

IDX LINK TYPE OPERATIONAL SETUP
1 lo loopback n/a unmanaged
2 eth0 ether n/a unmanaged
3 wlan0 wlan n/a unmanaged

3 links listed.

When turned on and configured the operation column changes and uses a green text er not impressed, getting one interface configured is for simpletons and i achieved that. The virtual addresses left me bewildered.  It kind of shows up but systemd only shows physical adaptors

It seemed to me despite man paging and a basic web search that an interface with more than two ipv4 addresses (not an ipv6 and and ipv4 [dual network stack]) is not possible and be kept separate.

Here was ifconfig with systemd

eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 172.16.0.* netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 172.16.0.255
inet6 fe80::82fa:5bff:fe0a:1fe4 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
ether 80:fa:5b:0a:1f:e4 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 2704 bytes 1441236 (1.3 MiB)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 3101 bytes 446983 (436.5 KiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0

lo: flags=73<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING> mtu 65536
inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 255.0.0.0
inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 scopeid 0x10<host>
loop txqueuelen 1 (Local Loopback)
RX packets 24 bytes 1362 (1.3 KiB)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 24 bytes 1362 (1.3 KiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0

Maybe i need to hairy eyeball the stuff more and as this is a testing machine is not mission critical but it true than systemd as networking provider would be limiting – i went back to /etc/network/interfaces which shows something like.

eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 172.16.0.* netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 172.16.0.255
inet6 fe80::82fa:5bff:fe0a:1fe4 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
ether x txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 2704 bytes 1441236 (1.3 MiB)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 3101 bytes 446983 (436.5 KiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0

eth0:1: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 172.16.0.* netmask 255.255.0.0 broadcast 172.16.255.255
ether x txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)

eth0:2: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 172.16.0.* netmask 255.255.0.0 broadcast 172.16.255.255
ether x txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)

eth0:3: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 172.16.0.* netmask 255.255.0.0 broadcast 172.16.255.255
ether x txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)

eth0:4: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 172.16.0.* netmask 255.255.0.0 broadcast 172.16.255.255
ether x txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)

lo: flags=73<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING> mtu 65536
inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 255.0.0.0
inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 scopeid 0x10<host>
loop txqueuelen 1 (Local Loopback)
RX packets 24 bytes 1362 (1.3 KiB)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 24 bytes 1362 (1.3 KiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0

Well done Potterang

Anyhow systemd seems to be limiting what the average linux os can do – pretty standard behaviour for the gnome and systemd developers.

Systemd and its continuing megomanic plans seems to be a very very bad decision.

4 responses

  1. Pingback: Bride of frankenstien systemd networking | Bananas in the Falklands

  2. Pingback: Googles (& Alphabet’s) possible missou problem | Bananas in the Falklands

  3. Pingback: Unreliable systemd (shit software in the mist) | Bananas in the Falklands

by golly but...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s