[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] RFC: configuring host interfaces with libvirt



On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 10:59 +0100, Marius Tomaschewski wrote:
> > >For now, I want to stay out of setting up static routes, but I think
> > >that has to come sooner or later.
> 
> It is OK to limit routes to the default route for now, but IMO
> it is better to use separate xml nodes, e.g.:
> 
>     <static ipaddr="192.168.0.5" [netmask,broadcast,...] />
> and something like:
>     <route gateway="192.168.0.1" /> # implicit destination=default
>     <route destination="default" gateway="192.168.0.1" />
> 
> rather than mixing the gateway into the IP address related attributes:
> 
>     <static ipaddr="192.168.0.5" gateway="192.168.0.1"
>             netmask="255.255.255.0"/>
> 
> because as soon as you start to support static routes, there are two
> nodes/places where the default gateway can be defined.

Yeah, that's a good catch; I'll change the schema accordingly.

> Another way would be to say, there is either no STP parameter at all
> (and use always stp="off" + fowarddelay=0) or only the STP parameter
> and the backend implementation has to handle the another parameters
> and write them "using real world defaults" into the ifcfg file.

A third option would be to allow specifying parameters that only _some_
backends support, and produce an error, e.g. if you try to set maxage on
Fedora. We don't necessarily have to support only the lcd.

David



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]