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

Re: [libvirt] Need to re-work final "peer address" patches and re-push them



On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:57:36 -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
> I reverted these three patches that introduced and enabled a "peer" 
> attribute for type='ethernet' interface <ip> elements prior to the 
> release of 1.3.4 with the intent of fixing/re-posting them after 
> release, but forgot until today:
> 
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2016-April/msg01995.html
> 
> I have patches for most of the bugs, but the one problem that still 
> doesn't have resolution is the naming of the "peer" attribute. In my 
> opinion, having the two address attributes named "address" and "peer" 
> makes it ambiguous which address is for the guest side and which for the 
> host side (especially since the attribute that has been named "peer" 
> would be set to the "address" in the netlink command, and the attribute 
> named "address" would be set to "peer" in the netlink command :-O).
> 
> Since "address" is an existing attribute, and already used for the guest 
> side IP address in lxc type='bridge' interfaces, it must remain as-is. 
> In order to make it obvious that the new address is for the host side of 
> the tap (or veth pair in the case of lxc), I propose calling it either 
> "host", or "hostAddress", e.g:
> 
>       <ip address='192.168.123.43' host='192.168.123.1' prefix='25'/>
> 
> or
> 
>       <ip address='192.168.123.4' hostAddress='192.168.123.1' prefix='25'/>

IMO "host" is better. After all it's an attribute of "ip" element so
it's obvious we're talking about addresses here.

Jirka


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