On Mon, 2019-03-04 at 22:11 +0800, Gris Ge wrote:
> Based on feedbacks, this is V2 scheme for review:
>
> ```
> {
> "routes": {
> "ipv4": [ # Sorted with 'table-id' then
> 'destination'
> {
> "status": "up",
> # up or absent(to be removed)
> # If not defined, use 'up'
> "table-name": "main",
> # Empty if no name attached,
> "table-id": 254,
> # If not defined, use 'main' route table id
> "protocol": "dhcp", # "static" or "dhcp"
> # If not defined, use 'static'
> "metric": 100,
> # If not defined, let NetworkManager to
> decided.
> "destination": "0.0.0.0/0",
> # Mandatory
> "next-hop-iface": "eth0",
> # Mandatory
> "next-hop-address": "192.0.2.1"
> # ^ Empty on point-to-point link
> },
> ],
> "ipv6": [ # Sorted with 'table-id' then 'destination'
> {
> "status": "up",
> "table-name": "main",
> "table-id": 254,
> "protocol": "router-advertisement",
> # ^ "static" or "router-advertisement"
> "metric": 100,
> "destination": "::/0",
> "next-hop-iface": "eth0",
> "next-hop-address": "fe80::1"
> },
> ],
> }
> }
> ```
>
> Changes since V1:
>
> * Top tree is 'routes', and subtree is 'ipv4' and 'ipv6'.
> Even the IPv4 and IPv6 route entry are mostly identical, but we
> need
> schema to differentiate the 'destination' address type in a simple
> way.
Hi,
I don't think there is any fundamental difference between
{
ipv4-routes: { ... },
ipv6-routes: { ... },
}
and
{
routes: {
ipv4: { ... },
ipv6: { ... },
},
}
Instead, the more fundamntal question is whether IPv4 and IPv6 routes
should be merged together and expressed by the same "object"/"type",
and get a "addr-family" field to differenciate.
{
routes: {
[0] = {
addr-family: ipv4,
...
},
...
},
}
I think the answer is "yes". It seems better to me to treat routes the
same on a higher layer, and move the differenciation between address
families closer the places that care about the difference.
> * Add 'status: absent' to simplify the route deletion.
>
> * Add comments to show the default value if not defined.
"protocol" possibly should still be renamed to "source". Or "origin"?
best,
Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ networkmanager-list mailing list networkmanager-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
