ew Jedrzejewski-Szmek; Lennart Poettering
Cc: Kinsella, Ray; 'systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org'
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] Add FDB support
"fdb" and "entry" association is non-googlable, but bridgeFDB is. It will get
you exactly where you want.
Alin; Kinsella, Ray; 'systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org'
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] Add FDB support
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 04:07:23PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fri, 12.12.14 09:07, Rauta, Alin (alin.ra...@intel.com) wrote:
>
> > What do you
The "in the field" problem is that after what firmware 1.7 changes with
Intel network drivers or what not things broke due to the fact that network
interfaces settings did not get inherited to the bridge interface and we
need to avoid that problem, which is why I think we need to redefine how we
fu
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 04:07:23PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fri, 12.12.14 09:07, Rauta, Alin (alin.ra...@intel.com) wrote:
>
> > What do you think about the following transformations:
> >
> > [FDBEntry] => [FDBNeigh]
>
> We try to avoid acronyms and abbreviations unles
t: Friday, December 12, 2014 4:41 PM
To: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] Add FDB support
On 12/12/2014 04:12 PM, Rauta, Alin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [BrigdeFDB] can be also fine. It's just that [BridgeFDB] makes you think at
> the entire f
On 12/12/2014 04:12 PM, Rauta, Alin wrote:
Hi,
[BrigdeFDB] can be also fine. It's just that [BridgeFDB] makes you think at the
entire forwarding database table and you are actually defining only one entry.
[BridgeFDBEntry] makes you think at just one entry in that table.
Hmm
So it can grow
devel [mailto:systemd-devel-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On
Behalf Of Matthias Urlichs
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 3:32 PM
To: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] Add FDB support
Hi,
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson":
> After I explained it to them they said wh
]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 3:07 PM
To: Rauta, Alin
Cc: 'systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org'; Kinsella, Ray
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] Add FDB support
On Fri, 12.12.14 09:07, Rauta, Alin (alin.ra...@intel.com) wrote:
> What do you think about the following transform
Hi,
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson":
> After I explained it to them they said why not just call it [BridgeFDB] ...
>
+1
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/syst
On 12/12/2014 03:12 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 12/12/2014 03:07 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Given that "fdb" and "entry" are commonly used I think [FDBEntry]
would be fine.
It exist there in the first place makes it an "entry" so what's wrong
with just calling this entry [FDB]
On 12/12/2014 03:07 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Given that "fdb" and "entry" are commonly used I think [FDBEntry]
would be fine.
It exist there in the first place makes it an "entry" so what's wrong
with just calling this entry [FDB]?
JBG
___
s
On Fri, 12.12.14 09:07, Rauta, Alin (alin.ra...@intel.com) wrote:
> What do you think about the following transformations:
>
> [FDBEntry] => [FDBNeigh]
We try to avoid acronyms and abbreviations unless they are very widely
established. Hence I am not convinced "Neigh" is something
able will have no impact on [FDBNeigh] sections
/Alin
-Original Message-
From: Rauta, Alin
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 4:58 PM
To: Lennart Poettering
Cc: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; Kinsella, Ray
Subject: RE: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] Add FDB support
Hi Lennart,
Thanks
On 12/11/2014 05:07 PM, Rauta, Alin wrote:
Hi Johann,
If FDBControlled is no then we don't want to touch the forwarding database
table for this port.
If it's yes, then we want to control the FDB table (delete existing entries).
[Install] section can be an alternative. What about "FDB=enable"
ktop.org
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] Add FDB support
On 12/11/2014 04:16 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> What happens if FDBControlled is no, but still FDBEntrys specified?
Cant we simply address those no/yes cases by extending the [Install] section to
cover all those [foo] entries
So
ther suggestion for [FDBEntry] ?
>
> Best Regards,
> Alin
> -Original Message-
> From: Lennart Poettering [mailto:lenn...@poettering.net]
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 4:16 PM
> To: Rauta, Alin
> Cc: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; Kinsella, Ray
> S
014 4:16 PM
To: Rauta, Alin
Cc: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; Kinsella, Ray
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] Add FDB support
On Thu, 11.12.14 08:07, Alin Rauta (alin.ra...@intel.com) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've added support for handling the forwarding database table for a port.
>
On 12/11/2014 04:16 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
What happens if FDBControlled is no, but still FDBEntrys specified?
Cant we simply address those no/yes cases by extending the [Install]
section to cover all those [foo] entries
Something like..
[Network]
DHCP=v4
[FDB]
MACAddress=44:44:12
On 12/11/2014 04:07 PM, Alin Rauta wrote:
[Network]
DHCP=v4
FDBControlled=yes
[FDBEntry]
MACAddress=44:44:12:34:56:71
VLAN=9
[FDBEntry]
MACAddress=44:44:12:34:56:72
VLAN=10
Any reason why you are adding a boolean variable here -->
FDBControlled=yes <--
It should be safe to assume if any
On Thu, 11.12.14 08:07, Alin Rauta (alin.ra...@intel.com) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've added support for handling the forwarding database table for a port.
> FDB entries can be configured statically through the ".network" files.
>
> To resume,
> - I've added a new boolean for the main network structure
Hi,
I've added support for handling the forwarding database table for a port.
FDB entries can be configured statically through the ".network" files.
To resume,
- I've added a new boolean for the main network structure, named
"FDBControlled" which is read from the .network file and defaults to fa
Signed-off-by: Alin Rauta
---
Makefile.am | 1 +
man/systemd.network.xml | 31 +++
src/libsystemd/sd-rtnl/rtnl-message.c| 56 -
src/libsystemd/sd-rtnl/rtnl-types.c | 15 +-
src/network/networkd-fdb.c | 357 +
22 matches
Mail list logo
