On 04/10/2013 01:38 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote: > On 04/09/2013 04:28 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote: >> OK, how about having it both ways. If we can have both mask and >> prefix, why not both via and gateway. I know gateway has some >> history attached to it but the new /sbin/ip uses via. I am just >> trying to keep a line of text being as close to not exceeding 80 >> characters as practical. Correct me if I am wrong but all of this is >> suppose to be free-form and this should be valid: >> >> <route ip='ipv6' address='fd00:dead:beef:472::1' prefix='64' >> gateway='fd00:dead:beef:10::2' /> >> >> Of course, when it gets written back out by code it will all be on a >> "single" line. >> >> How about one of you other folks chiming in on this. gateway? ... >> via? ... anybody (besides the two of us) care?? > OK, unless someone can present a convincing argument, I am going with > "via" and not "gateway". Thus, the general form is: > <route family=... address=... prefix=... via=... /> > </route> > > Why "via" and not "gateway". Well, /sbin/ip uses "via" whereas > /sbin/route uses "gateway". If there was a convincing argument to > keep gateway instead off via, the /sbin/ip code would be different or > would be changed to gateway. BTW, IMHO, netmask could disappear also > and have prefix= only. Nope. In libvirt *nothing* can ever disappear. We try our hardest to provide 100% backward compatibility for existing applications (and have so far been successful at it). > > Also, the current implementation enforces that the address specified > with via= must be resolvable into a network-address which has been > defined for the interface. That is, you cannot point via= off into > some address that the virtualization host has no idea where it is. Right. It must be directly reachable by the network/interface it's added to. -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list