9:34 p.m.
Hi Denis,
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 16:46, Denis Kenzior <denkenz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/22/20 9:28 AM, Andrew Zaborowski wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 16:19, Denis Kenzior <denkenz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/21/20 11:18 PM, Andrew Zaborowski wrote:
>>> I'm still using netconfig from P2P, I guess we shouldn't require
>>> General.EnableNetworkConfiguration to be set for P2P. P2P doesn't
>>> (usually) have DNS so this should still work but maybe the checks
>>> should be in netconfig.c after all, not sure.
>>
>> I don't think it makes sense to have this asymmetry. Why is P2P special
>> compared to normal station client?
>
> We also don't have any configuration for P2P netconfig because the
> spec mandates the use of DHCP. There's also no legacy to worry about,
> so I don't see the point of making DHCP optional for P2P.
That isn't exactly the point I was trying to make. P2P would always use DHCP or
network config KDEs, no disagreement there. But from a user / system
configuration perspective I don't think this asymmetry is something that one
would expect or would want.us
So if the user has not enabled EnableNetworkConfiguration setting then
systemd-networkd (for example) expects to perform DHCP for all WiFi interfaces.
How would you tell systemd-networkd not to configure P2P devices? They're just
WiFi as far as it is concerned.
Ok, I wouldn't have expected that. I wonder then if we should wait
for the IP configuration to finish before returning from dbus calls so
that the clients can expect consistent behaviour. And the client
still needs a way to get the peer's IP.
Best regards