On Fri, 25.04.14 19:36, Tom Gundersen (t...@jklm.no) wrote: > [sorry for breaking the quoting, hopefully it is clear who said what] > > I actually think this is the correct way to do it, as the addresses > (which I assume is what Jóhann is objecting to?) are properties of the > link (similar to mac addresses, mtu, etc) rather than regular ip > addresses that you can configure for normal devices. Or maybe I'm > missing something? Anyone else have any input on this?
This is solely about whether Local= and Remote= belong in .netdev? I am pretty sure they do, after all this is a weird setup: a tunnel is something where the link level is actually the network level of the underlying stack. Hence I think it is right to configure the "low-level" local and remot IP addresses of the tunnel in .netdev, as long as the "high-level" local/remote IP addresses of the tunnel stay in .network, if what I write here makes any sense... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel