No support for interface labels

Bug #1743200 reported by Maciej Dems on 2018-01-14
128
This bug affects 25 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
netplan
Undecided
Unassigned
nplan (Ubuntu)
Wishlist
Unassigned

Bug Description

In the old /etc/network/interfaces I could define a virtual interface:

    auto eth0
    iface eth0 inet static
        address aaa.aaa.aaa.aaa
        netmask 255.255.255.0
        gateway aaa.aaa.aaa.1

    auto eth0:0
    iface eth0:0 inet static
        address bbb.bbb.bbb.bbb
        netmask 255.255.255.0

This is not possible to achieve with the netplan. The only exisiting posibilities are either to create a VLAN, which may be not an option in some networks where you have no access to other hosts, or to define both addresses for one interface:

    network:
      version: 2
      renderer: networkd
      ethernets:
        eth0:
          addresses: [aaa.aaa.aaa.aaa/24, bbb.bbb.bbb/24]
          gateway4: aaa.aaa.aaa.1

This solution is not optimal either, because configuring iptables or some services may require specific interface name for a single network.

It should be possible to add the same physical interfaces with different networks and different alias names.

Changed in nplan (Ubuntu):
status: New → Triaged
importance: Undecided → Wishlist
Robert Sander (gurubert) wrote :

This is called an interface label, the iproute2 syntax is as follows:

ip address add bbb.bbb.bbb.bbb/24 dev eth0 label eth0:0

netplan should support this configuration.

Changed in nplan (Ubuntu):
status: Triaged → In Progress
Changed in nplan (Ubuntu):
status: In Progress → Triaged
summary: - No virtual interfaces
+ No support for interface labels
Jamie Murphy (itjamie) wrote :

Is there any plan to implement this?

sascha arthur (blonkel) wrote :

yes please also need it :((

Volker (skydiablo) wrote :

+1

Florian Faltermeier (florianfa) wrote :

+1

Alexey Zilber (alexeyzilber) wrote :

+1 Also, why is this a "Wishlist"? This is BASIC FUNCTIONALITY that has been in linux since the 1990's! This is a functional defect.

Maciej Dems (macdems) on 2020-01-22
description: updated
Jamie Murphy (itjamie) wrote :

+1. Its insane that a configuration option thats been around for years was skipped.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers