On 11/19/2013 09:20 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Colin Guthrie<gm...@colin.guthr.ie> wrote:
What I have in mind (though it is not dictated by this patch) is
something different (first proposed by Lennart in an earlier thread):
[Network]
Address=192.168.0.1/24
Address=192.168.0.2/24
Gateway=192.168.1.1
[Address:oneaddress]
Address=192.168.0.3/24
Label=three
Peer=192.168.1.1
[Address:anotheraddress]
Address=192.168.0.4/24
Label=four
In this case we'll configure four addresses. The two first ones could
also have been expressed as:
[Address:foo]
Address=192.168.0.1/24
[Address:bar]
Address=192.168.0.2/24,
but we allow putting them directly in the [Network] section rather
than in a named [Address] section as a shorthand.
Notice that if we simply did
[Address]
Address=192.168.0.3/24
Label=three
Peer=192.168.1.1
[Address]
Address=192.168.0.4/24
Label=four,
that wouldn't work as it is (at least currently) equivalent to
[Address]
Address=192.168.0.3/24
Label=three
Peer=192.168.1.1
Address=192.168.0.4/24
Label=four,
which is why we need to give the secitons unique names.
Arent's we sacrificing significant part of simplicity in units going
down this path as opposed to have users use per unit interface instances
units and templating/instances ?
JBG
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
