On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: > On Wed, 28.01.15 10:13, Rauta, Alin (alin.ra...@intel.com) wrote: > >> Lennart, on a switch I should be able to configure more than one UFD >> group. > > What precisely does this mean? WOuld those groups be orthogonal? >
No. You have two different VLANs; uplink group 1 connects to to VLAN1, uplink group 2 connects to VLAN2. They are not orthogonal in any way and exist at the same time. If group 1 goes down, it does not affect group 2 in any way. > I really would like to avoid introdcuing the "tags" concept for > now. Would a solution where you give the uplinks appropriate names > (like "uplink0", "uplinkXYZ", "uplink_waldo" and so on) suffice, when > you can then refer to them in a .network file you apply to the > downlinks as "BindCarrier=uplink*"? > > BindCarrier= would take a list of interface names, possibly with > globs. If you want to up and down a link "foo" if at least one of the > links "bar", "quux", "piep", "miau1", "miau2" are up, you could write > this as "BindCarrier=bar quux piep miau*". > > What would introducing the "tag" concept give you beyond this very > simple schreme described above? > > Lennart > > -- > Lennart Poettering, Red Hat > _______________________________________________ > systemd-devel mailing list > systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel