> From: Bill Nottingham <notting@redhat.com>
> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 17:34:20 -0400
>
> > I could look at wireless network configuration, but I doubt that's going to
> > help your argument.
>
> Just like any system with age, we have a lot of legacy to
> convert over. But it will happen.
>
> > That being said, how is moving from adding a bonding slave from:
> > echo "+eth0" > /sys/class/net/bond0/bonding/slaves to:
> > to:
> >
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Net:Generic_Netlink_HOWTO
> >
> > a worthwhile improvement for the admin? Let's see, a kernel-userspace
> > protocol with magic message formats. Hey, we reinvented ioctl!
> >
> > Why, if netlink is the standard (and it's been around for a long
> > damn time), was sysfs configuration for bonding added in 2005? Why
> > was bridge configuration added in 2005, and *extended* in 2006 and
> > 2007? Why were the user-space tools such as brctl ported from ioctl
> > to sysfs?
>
> Because often a lot of shit slips in when someone who understands
> the ramifications is too busy or on vacation.
>
> We do want everything to be netlink based.
>
> Why?
>
> Because it means that you can run one monitoring tool to listen
> for netlink events and report them to the user for diagnosis.
>
> It means that network configuration events can be sent over
> the wire and used remotely at some point.
>
> The latter can never happen as long as we keep adding ad-hoc
> config stuff.
