On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:40:48PM +0200, Edward Haas wrote: > > What is the root level key? `routing`? The root level is 'ipv4-routes' and 'ipv6-routes'.
Try to save a layer for user to type comparing to ['routing']['routes'] > ipv4 and ipv6 look identical to me here. > It makes sense then to have `route` as the subtree and a `family` > entry inside. OK. And we could auto detect the family if user does not specify it when applying. > "next-hop-iface": "eth0", # Mandatory > > > This is not mandatory on `iproute2`, it is usually resolved based on > the address next hop. Will remove the mandatory thing. > "ipv6-routes": [ # Sorted with 'table-id' then 'destination' > "protocol": "auto", # "static" or "auto"[1] > I prefer a more meaningful name, `auto` is problematic. How about 'ipv6-ra' for router advertisement? > * For future source routing support, we could add top entry as > 'route-rules' or other name to be decided. > > routing-->rule will be nice. Same reason above, save some typing. > What about adding or deleting an entry. > Can we use `state` to express existence and absent? > For cases where there are hundreds of routes, asking the user to > specify all will not work well. User could just remove the entry from what he/she got from `libnmstate.show()`. I don't know why that's hard for user. Can you elaborate the use case? Thank you very much. Best regards. -- Gris Ge
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ networkmanager-list mailing list networkmanager-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
