You’ve mentioned that you dont care about systemd several times, but it’s certainly not clear from your post.

Many companies contribute to the LF. Intel, Qualcomm, Samsung, oracle, redhat, are all platinum members. Are you concerned because poettering works for ms that they’re going to privatize Linux?

What is your issue with run0?

If you don’t care about systemd, then why post?

Sysvinit is done. It is not graceful at handling dependant services, it was hard to test, and customising a service was painful compared to unit files.

For someone who’s been at Linux for 30 years, you clearly haven’t spent any time fighting with init scripts.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of Poettering. His approach lacks any empathy for anyone who’s entrenched in a current system and breaks stuff with his deployment approach.

But run0 solves a LOT of problems with sudo, problems that have always existed. Have you ever tried to deploy a sudoers file in an ecosystem of Linux systems relying on LDAP? Sudo definitely needs fixing.

According to this, 6.2.4.x is not affected.

OVS is fine, you can make live changes and something like spanning port traffic is a bit less hassle than using tc, but beyond that, it’s not really an important component to a failover scenario over any other vswitch, since it has no idea what a TCP stream is.

For sure, if your thing is leaning into network configs, nothing wrong with it, especially if you have proper failover set up.

I think virtualized routing looks fun to the learning homelabber, and it is, but it does come with some caveats.

HA… Do you mean failover? It would need some consideration, either a second wan link or accepting that a few TCP sessions might reset after the cutover, even with state sync. But it’s definitely doable.

I’m currently in a state of ramping down my hardware from a 1u dual Xeon to a more appropriate solution on less power-hungry gear, so I’m not as interested in setting up failover if it means adding to my power consumption simply for the uptime. After 25 years in IT, its become clear to me that the solutions we put in place at work come with some downsides like power consumption, noise, complexity and cost that aren’t offset by any meaningful advantage.

All that said, i did run that setup for a few years and it does perform very well. The one advantage of having a router virtualized was being able to revert to a snapshot if an upgrade failed, which is a good case for virtualizing a router on its own.

I did it for a few years, it looks interesting on paper, but in practice, it’s a nightmare.

At home, you’ll be getting real sick of asking for change windows to reboot your hypervisor.

At work, you will rue the day you convinced mgmt to let it happen, only to now have hypervisor weirdness to troubleshoot on top of chasing down bgp and TCP header issues. If it’s a dedicated router, you can at least narrow the scope of possible problems.

Because bringing up nftables is not relevant to op’s question.

Depends on your workflow.

• Paperless itself is great, but it cannot ingest half my PDF bills and invoices due to limitations on the conversion tools dependency.
• support for interpreting US/EU conventions for date and time takes careful workflow rules, automation can have weird results
• multi user support is a bit of a mess

In short, it’s great for single user, single workflow cases, but not so much for just ingesting all kinds of docs and having truly helpful doc processing.

No v4/v6 dual stack mentioned here, nor any multi-action rules required, so nftables would be of no advantage here.

Unless you’re just saying “new thing good, old thing bad” here, I’m not sure why bother mentioning nftables.