В Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:19:14 +0000 "Rauta, Alin" <alin.ra...@intel.com> пишет:
> So, we have: > > 1. BindCarrier="list of uplink ports" > > 2. Network.DownlinkCarrierGroup=1 in upstream interface > Network.UplinkCarrierGroup=1 in downstream interface > > This would mean you have to create 2 new members for the Network structure. > > 3. If we are to add 2 members then we can also think of adding: > Network.UFDGroup = 1; > Network.UFDType = uplink/downlink; > > For the feature to be visible I would say 3, but I'm fine with any of them. I like 3 as well. > > Thanks, > Alin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrei Borzenkov [mailto:arvidj...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 3:49 PM > To: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > Cc: Rauta, Alin; Lennart Poettering; Kinsella, Ray; systemd Mailing List > Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] Added UFD (Uplink failure detection) > support to networkd > > В Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:10:16 +0100 > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbys...@in.waw.pl> пишет: > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 02:05:10PM +0000, Rauta, Alin wrote: > > > What if we don't use the "*" for now and document "BindCarrier" > > > accordingly to be a list of port names and no wildcard ? > > > Then, if it's the case we can add such "*" support for "BindCarrier" and > > > think about all those corner cases ? > > > > What about interpreting the wildcard dynimically instead? If > > eth3 goes down, look at all interfaces which have BindCarrier set, and > > check with glob if their BindCarrier setting matches eth3, and act > > accordingly. > > > > This means that every time any interface (dis)appears you must go through all > existing BindCarrier statements and check whether they apply. This is really > ugly. For this reasons I believe uplink group should be first class citizen > also internally. > > And how do you set properties for it? Which of BindCarrierMode statements in > different link (or are they network?) files apply if they differ? What if you > need to add more properties? > > What about > > DownlinkCarrierGroup=1 in upstream interface > UplinkCarrierGroup=1 in downstream interface > > This creates uplink group 1 and binds interfaces to it. Now you only need to > care if there is another interface definition that has the same group number. > > But you still need ability to set group properties (although in practice > every switch I have seen is using policy "all" - anyone can give compelling > use case for using "any"?), so yes, we may need support configuration object > for it. But the first step could be default to policy "all" which does not > require any configuration. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
