On 29 January 2015 at 16:19, Rauta, Alin <alin.ra...@intel.com> wrote:
> So, we have: > > 1. BindCarrier="list of uplink ports" > > 2. Network.DownlinkCarrierGroup=1 in upstream interface > Network.UplinkCarrierGroup=1 in downstream interface > > This would mean you have to create 2 new members for the Network structure. > > 3. If we are to add 2 members then we can also think of adding: > Network.UFDGroup = 1; > Network.UFDType = uplink/downlink; > > For the feature to be visible I would say 3, but I'm fine with any of them. > Hi all, As a sysadmin, my preference would be for option 1 - that is that you do the configuration in one place: the interface you are changing the behaviour of. I'd then imagine that networkctl could do something like: # networkctl ufd downlink0 UFD is configured on this interface Config File: /etc/systemd/network/downlink0.network Interface is UP because ANY uplink is UP Uplinks: uplink0 (DOWN) uplink1 (UP) # networkctl ufd uplink1 UFD is not configured on this interface or this interface is an uplink. The problem I see with this approach is that it allows bizarre configurations to be specified which don't make sense in practice: e.g. 1 - Loop: /etc/systemd/network/downlink0.network: BindCarrier=uplink* /etc/systemd/network/uplink0.network: BindCarrier=downlink* e.g. 2 - Chain /etc/systemd/network/downlink0.network: BindCarrier=uplink* /etc/systemd/network/uplink0.network: BindCarrier=thirdlink* All this is from a user point of view, without knowing what kind of code would be needed to support it. Regards, Dan
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel