On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 04:39:02PM +0300, Dmitry Guryanov wrote:
> On Thursday 13 November 2014 10:33:06 Cédric Bosdonnat wrote:
> > Network interfaces devices and host devices with net capabilities can
> > now have an IPv4 and/or an IPv6 address configured.
>
> I would rename "gateway" to "route", so it will mean an entry in a routing
> table. Because there will certainly be people, who would want to configure
> routing table more precisely than just setting default gateway.
>
> Something like
> <route to="10.10.0.0/16" via="10.3.0.1">
>
> Routing table is separated from devices configuration in the kernel, and some
> route types don't have output device, for example blackhole. So maybe it's
> better to move route from interface definition to outer scope and add "dev"
> parameter.
Hmm, if you have multiple IP addresses per device, you I guess you can
also have multiple default routes - one for each subnet range really
eg
<ip address='192.168.122.5' prefix='24'/>
<ip address='10.0.2.4' prefix='24'/>
<gateway ipv4='192.168.122.1'/>
<gateway ipv4='192.0.2.1'/>
So I at leaast agree that we need more than just a single <gateway> per
address type. I do like the routs associated with the <interface>
though. I'd be inclined to have
<route family="ipv4|ipv6" address="10.0.0.0" prefix="16" via="10.0.0.1"/>
under the <interface>. The address + prefix attrs could be optional if
there is only a single <ip> for a given family. eg in the simple case
we could get this for a "default route"
<route family="ipv4|ipv6" via="10.0.0.1"/>
If we ever find a real world need to have routes not associated with a
device, we can address that then.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list