On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:57:36 -0400, Laine Stump wrote: > I reverted these three patches that introduced and enabled a "peer" > attribute for type='ethernet' interface <ip> elements prior to the > release of 1.3.4 with the intent of fixing/re-posting them after > release, but forgot until today: > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2016-April/msg01995.html > > I have patches for most of the bugs, but the one problem that still > doesn't have resolution is the naming of the "peer" attribute. In my > opinion, having the two address attributes named "address" and "peer" > makes it ambiguous which address is for the guest side and which for the > host side (especially since the attribute that has been named "peer" > would be set to the "address" in the netlink command, and the attribute > named "address" would be set to "peer" in the netlink command :-O). > > Since "address" is an existing attribute, and already used for the guest > side IP address in lxc type='bridge' interfaces, it must remain as-is. > In order to make it obvious that the new address is for the host side of > the tap (or veth pair in the case of lxc), I propose calling it either > "host", or "hostAddress", e.g: > > <ip address='192.168.123.43' host='192.168.123.1' prefix='25'/> > > or > > <ip address='192.168.123.4' hostAddress='192.168.123.1' prefix='25'/> IMO "host" is better. After all it's an attribute of "ip" element so it's obvious we're talking about addresses here. Jirka -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list