Excerpts from Mike Perrin's message of Mon May 23 20:28:52 UTC 2011:
> On a functional level perhaps it is worth considering whether Network
> Manager, on stopping, should simply leave the interfaces as currently
> configured instead of taking them down. I can make the argument that
> Network Manager is a tool to make it easy for the user to control
> network interfaces, but Network Manager is not the owner of those
> interfaces, the system and user are. If the user makes a connection
> using Network Manger and then disables NM, why shouldn't the interface
> stay up until the user or a shutdown sequence takes it down?
Mike thats a great point and I think would be a design change for NM.
It might then be best to bring that up with the upstream developers.
As it stands now, NM does in fact own a network interface that it is
set to manage, and so, we must architect the system around that.
Excerpts from Mike Perrin's message of Mon May 23 20:28:52 UTC 2011:
> On a functional level perhaps it is worth considering whether Network
> Manager, on stopping, should simply leave the interfaces as currently
> configured instead of taking them down. I can make the argument that
> Network Manager is a tool to make it easy for the user to control
> network interfaces, but Network Manager is not the owner of those
> interfaces, the system and user are. If the user makes a connection
> using Network Manger and then disables NM, why shouldn't the interface
> stay up until the user or a shutdown sequence takes it down?
Mike thats a great point and I think would be a design change for NM.
It might then be best to bring that up with the upstream developers.
As it stands now, NM does in fact own a network interface that it is
set to manage, and so, we must architect the system around that.