Systemd Is Working Towards Its Own Super Fast DHCP Server, Client

[curaga]

So about that tentacle monster...

Systemd is becoming like a grotesque caricature of Apache or GNU umbrella projects. Or it already was, and now we're just debating the level of it.

[tuubi]

So about that tentacle monster...

Systemd is becoming like a grotesque caricature of Apache or GNU umbrella projects. Or it already was, and now we're just debating the level of it.

Don't be scared, little curaga. The monster won't hurt you. It looks scary but it's really just here to help us. (And it's actually just a bunch of nice little pieces of sotfware wearing a big monster-suit, as you should know by now.)

[tomegun]

(And it's actually just a bunch of nice little pieces of sotfware wearing a big monster-suit, as you should know by now.)

Lol, that's a nice anlogy. /me steals it for future use

[curaga]

So to you it's entirely sane for systemd to reinvent a DHCP server. This slippery slope has been going on for long now, and it will keep on sliding lower and lower.

[Gusar]

So to you it's entirely sane for systemd to reinvent a DHCP server.

Are we all supposed to use the "one true DHCP server"? And which one would that be - ISC dhcp, dnsmasq, busybox udhcpcd, toybox dhcpd, some other server I'm sure exists besides those I mentioned?

[tomegun]

So to you it's entirely sane for systemd to reinvent a DHCP server. This slippery slope has been going on for long now, and it will keep on sliding lower and lower.

"Everyone" who does a serious networking daemon needs to 'reinvent' a DHCP server (as outlined above, there are usecases even if you just use it in a limited setting). But 'reinvent' is a pretty strong word. We are just talking about implementing a specification, a pretty simple one at that. My current DHCP server code is 500 lines of code, so we are not talking about some monstrosity here. If you don't want to use networkd for your networking needs, that's fine, it is optional, but trying to say that we should not have this or that feature in networkd doesn't make much sense (unless you have some very good reasons).

[brent]

What about IPv6 support? It's pretty laughable that this isn't a priority, but silly features like super-fast operation are. systemd-network needs to support SLAAC and DHCPv6 configurations and ideally RDNSS.

[tomegun]

What about IPv6 support? It's pretty laughable that this isn't a priority, but silly features like super-fast operation are. systemd-network needs to support SLAAC and DHCPv6 configurations and ideally RDNSS.

DHCP6 is coming very soon. The best way to influence the priorities is through patches...

[uid313]

Crazy

So what is next?

When are they going to put a DNS, HTTP, and FTP client and server in systemd?
How about a database server?

Seriously, how much stuff are they going to put into systemd?
And what really belongs in systemd and what doesn't?

Separation of concerns, anyone?
Single responsibility principle, anyone?
Do one thing and do it well, anyone?

[justmy2cents]

So what is next?

When are they going to put a DNS, HTTP, and FTP client and server in systemd?
How about a database server?

Seriously, how much stuff are they going to put into systemd?
And what really belongs in systemd and what doesn't?

Separation of concerns, anyone?
Single responsibility principle, anyone?
Do one thing and do it well, anyone?

while i agree on most, last 3 remarks are valid for unix, not linux. only people who didn't realized that fact, promote them. linux would already break all those 3 rules by monolithic kernel.