* Daniel Veillard (veillard@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 09:47:17AM -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
> > * Gerhard Stenzel (gstenzel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 12:13 -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
> > > > I'd suggest to use this patch as a base for triggering the setup
> > > > protocol with the 802.1Qb{g|h} switch.
> > >
> > > Here is a RFC patch, which demonstrates how libvirt could communicate
> > > with lldpad via the lldptool for the 802.1Qbg case. Please note, that
> > > there is currently no public available version of lldptool which accepts
> > > this command line. This is also work in progress.
> >
> > Can this be made a library instead of an exec() based cmdline interface?
>
> Hum, actually from a libvirt deployment POV, depending on an unstable
> library is way worse than depending on a command line interface. I.e.
> the library would make sense only if we had some serious garantee of
> stabilities, API/ABI garantees, etc ... In the absence of someone firmly
> commiting to this, a CLI is less dangerous. So at least in a first
> step an exec() based interface sounds the right approach to me.
Fair enough (you're in way better position to see the implications). I
know other bits had moved to library interfaces, so thought I'd make the
suggestion. Main thing that is worth pointing out is this is moving
away from a single netlink based message interface, and towards a
messaging interface per type (VNLink, Qbg...)
thanks,
-chris
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list