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

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] v2:Support for adding a static route to a bridge



On 04/09/2013 04:28 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
OK, how about having it both ways. If we can have both mask and prefix, why not both via and gateway. I know gateway has some history attached to it but the new /sbin/ip uses via. I am just trying to keep a line of text being as close to not exceeding 80 characters as practical. Correct me if I am wrong but all of this is suppose to be free-form and this should be valid:

        <route ip='ipv6'  address='fd00:dead:beef:472::1' prefix='64'
                    gateway='fd00:dead:beef:10::2'  />

Of course, when it gets written back out by code it will all be on a "single" line.

How about one of you other folks chiming in on this. gateway? ... via? ... anybody (besides the two of us) care??
OK, unless someone can present a convincing argument, I am going with "via" and not "gateway". Thus, the general form is:
    <route  family=... address=... prefix=... via=... />
    </route>

Why "via" and not "gateway". Well, /sbin/ip uses "via" whereas /sbin/route uses "gateway". If there was a convincing argument to keep gateway instead off via, the /sbin/ip code would be different or would be changed to gateway. BTW, IMHO, netmask could disappear also and have prefix= only.

Also, the current implementation enforces that the address specified with via= must be resolvable into a network-address which has been defined for the interface. That is, you cannot point via= off into some address that the virtualization host has no idea where it is.

Reworked update "real soon now".

Gene


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