http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=907495 Bernhard Wiedemann changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bwiedemann@suse.com Assignee|bnc-team-screening@forge.pr |wicked-maintainers@suse.de |ovo.novell.com | --- Comment #1 from Bernhard Wiedemann --- sounds like another duplicate of bug 895219 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=907495 Hans-Peter Jansen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|Network |Network Version|Final |13.2 Product|openSUSE 12.3 |openSUSE Distribution Target Milestone|--- |13.2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=907495 Hans-Peter Jansen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|DUPLICATE |--- --- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Jansen --- Marius, thanks for your answer. With all due respect, but I really think, that this is a regression - at least from a usability perspective. Discussion: Sure, wicked was developed to have a clean network setup. In the light of a _damaged_ network setup, if some static routing is used (tried), simply pointing to some obscure (again usability wise) dhcp option is a little 90s, isn't it? At least, yast2 network should completely disable the static routing dialog, if DHCP is selected, pointing out, that openSUSE is unable to setup static routes in this context. Since some automated setup tools (including mine) does add such config files directly, this is still not sufficient, hence a README explaining this situation in /etc/sysconfig/network is in order (static-routes-with-dhcp-controlled-interfaces.txt). This file should document the following: Due to openSUSEs new network setup scheme (wicked), static routing for DHCP controlled interfaces can only configured in your DHCP server setup. Bad luck, if it's not flexible enough to allow you such configuration. (You're always free to setup your own named/dhcpd infrastructure, of course..) If you're lucky, eg. you have control over a ISC dhcpd, you need to add a global option similar to: option static-routes code 121 = array of integer 8; Within you devices section, either pool, group, or single host definition, add something similar to: option static-routes 0,172,16,32,1,24,192,168,0,172,16,32,2,24,10,9,0,172,16,32,2; which would result in: 0,172,16,32,1 # ip route add default via 172.16.32.1 24,192,168,0,172,16,32,2 # ip route add 192.168.0.0/24 via 172.16.32.2 24,10,9,0,172,16,32,2 # ip route add 10.9.0.0/24 via 172.16.32.2 You need to add a default route here, since dhcpcd ignores any default route definition, when static routes are defined. That's a beauty, isn't it. The real question is, what is so hard with hooking these commands into the dhcpcd --script option? I haven't looked at the code and can imagine, that this wouldn't be nice code. So either fix yast2 network or wicked, but don't annoy your advanced long term users for no good reason, please. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=907495 Stefan Brüns changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |stefan.bruens@rwth-aachen.d | |e --- Comment #13 from Stefan Brüns ---

(In reply to Hans-Peter Jansen from comment #9)

...

Okay, the direct routes prepended did the trick.

That still doesn't solve the problem for users, that define such routes with yast.

?? There is no problem -- you can define such routes with yast2.

Unfortunately, yast2 displays the routes not in the order defined in the file, but in significance order. E.g. if you first define the network route and then the gateway route, the gateway route will be first in yast. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=907495 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=907495#c17 Hans-Peter Jansen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ralf.habacker@fre | |enet.de) --- Comment #17 from Hans-Peter Jansen --- Dear Ralf, given, a lot of time has passed since I opened this issue, would you please take the time and read this issue carefully, including the possible solutions. wicked does respect static routes, but they need to follow certain rules. If that does not provide a fix to your issue, open a new issue for it. If you leave a comment about the new issue number, I'm happy to follow it and provide feedback, based on the distribution, package versions and described scenario. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.