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

Re: [netcf-devel] [libvirt] [RFC] Reporting host interface status/statistics via netcf/libvirt, and listing active vs. inactive interfaces

On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 20:14 +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 05:45:33PM +0000, David Lutterkort wrote:
> > Agreed .. that format wouldn't help much with static checking.
>   Okay, well I think the recursive definition is really the worse
> for validation and processing. 

I think the nested format is the easiest to validate, and make sure we
encode rules like "a bridge may not enslave another bridge" or "a bond
can only enslave physical NIC's"

Look at the picture[1] with the edges going into the vlan node removed -
that's pretty much the structure of the RelaxNG. It's precise, and
fairly simple.

The main thing we are missing is a distinction between toplevel bond
(may have an address) and enslaved bond (no address), similar to how the
RelaxNG distinguishes between ethernet-interface and


[1] https://fedorahosted.org/netcf/wiki/InterfaceNesting

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