> On 21 Mar 2022, at 19:49, Mark Michelson <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm a bit surprised that with this change, the hierarchy for specificity is > TYPE < IP < GATEWAY_PORT . This makes it sound as though the primary use case > would be to use the same IP for multiple NAT rules across different gateway > ports. Wouldn't it be just as likely that the same gateway port would be used > for multiple NAT rules all with different IPs? Yes, that makes sense.
> > ovn-nbctl lr-nat-del [TYPE [IP] [GATEWAY_PORT]] > > I think you should leave it the way you have it since it is easiest to > explain (deleting multiple rules == never raise an error, deleting a specific > rule == raise an error if it doesn't exist). Otherwise, the nuances are > difficult to explain and difficult to maintain. This syntax looks good. So, with this syntax, we never expect to match a single NAT rule and hence, we would not need —if_exists, right? I will retain the arg but we might never hit that case. Thanks, Abhiram Sangana _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
