* Markus Armbruster (arm...@redhat.com) wrote:
> "Zhang, Chen" <chen.zh...@intel.com> writes:
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>
> [...]
> >> Naming the argument type L4_Connection is misleading.
> >>
> >> Even naming the match arguments L4_Connection would be misleading.
> >> "Connection" has a specific meaning in networking. There are TCP
> >> connections. There is no such thing as an UDP connection.
> >>
> >> A TCP connection is uniquely identified by a pair of endpoints, i.e. by
> >> source
> >> address, source port, destination address, destination port.
> >> Same for other connection-oriented protocols. The protocol is not part of
> >> the connection. Thus, L4_Connection would be misleading even for the
> >> connection-oriented case.
> >>
> >> You need a named type for colo-passthrough-add's argument because you
> >> share it with colo-passthrough-del. I'm not sure that's what we want (I'm
> >> going to write more on that in a moment). If it is what we want, then
> >> please
> >> pick a another, descriptive name.
> >
> > What do you think the "L4BypassRule" or "NetworkRule" ?
>
> NetworkRule is too generic.
>
> What about ColoPassthroughRule?
Which is a bit specific; there's not actually anything Colo specific in
there; can I suggest 'L4FlowSpec'; I think there should also be
a separate type that represents an IP address+port, so that what you end
up with is:
IPFlowSpec
ID
Protocol
Source
Dest
Dave
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
