On Tue, 03.02.15 13:03, Rauta, Alin (alin.ra...@intel.com) wrote:
> Hi Lennart,
>
> I agree that "BindCarrier=" should suffice.
Perfect!
I have added this to the TODO list now, and of course we'd be
happy to take a patch!
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
iling List
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] Added UFD (Uplink failure detection)
support to networkd
On Tue, 03.02.15 09:05, Rauta, Alin (alin.ra...@intel.com) wrote:
> Yes, since the concept of UFD group is not exposed.
Does this mean we have agreement that the simply BindCarrier= option I pr
On Tue, 03.02.15 09:05, Rauta, Alin (alin.ra...@intel.com) wrote:
> Yes, since the concept of UFD group is not exposed.
Does this mean we have agreement that the simply BindCarrier= option I
proposed would be sufficient for your usecases? That would be great!
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering, Red
-devel] [PATCH] Added UFD (Uplink failure detection)
support to networkd
On Thu, 29.01.15 11:20, Rauta, Alin (alin.ra...@intel.com) wrote:
heya,
> Regarding the "networkctl" update to show the UFD groups in a user
> friendly fashion, what about that ?
Well, I am not particula
On Thu, 29.01.15 17:00, Daniel Ankers (md1...@md1clv.com) wrote:
> 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/syste
On Thu, 29.01.15 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
On Thu, 29.01.15 11:20, Rauta, Alin (alin.ra...@intel.com) wrote:
heya,
> Regarding the "networkctl" update to show the UFD groups in a user
> friendly fashion, what about that ?
Well, I am not particularly convinced we should expose the concept of
an "UFD group" at all. However, I think it woul
On Thu, 29.01.15 18:49, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote:
> В Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:10:16 +0100
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek пишет:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 02:05:10PM +, Rauta, Alin wrote:
> > > What if we don't use the "*" for now and document "BindCarrier"
> > > according
On Thu, 29.01.15 14:05, Rauta, Alin (alin.ra...@intel.com) wrote:
> What if we don't use the "*" for now and document "BindCarrier"
> accordingly to be a list of port names and no wildcard ?
Note that checking wildcards is really easy with glibc's
fnmatch(). In fact, it's easier to do the full gl
On Thu, 29.01.15 15:20, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 28.01.15 10:13, Rauta, Alin (alin.ra...@intel.com) wrote:
> >
> >> Lennart, on a switch I should be able to configure more than one UFD
> >> group.
> >
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 06:49:08PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> В Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:10:16 +0100
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek пишет:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 02:05:10PM +, Rauta, Alin wrote:
> > > What if we don't use the "*" for now and document "BindCarrier"
> > > accordingly to
I like 3 as well.
>
> Thanks,
> Alin
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrei Borzenkov [mailto:arvidj...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 3:49 PM
> To: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> Cc: Rauta, Alin; Lennart Poettering; Kinsella, Ray; systemd Mailing
On 29 January 2015 at 16:19, Rauta, Alin 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 structur
PM
To: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
Cc: Rauta, Alin; Lennart Poettering; Kinsella, Ray; systemd Mailing List
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] Added UFD (Uplink failure detection)
support to networkd
В Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:10:16 +0100
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek пишет:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 02:05
В Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:10:16 +0100
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek пишет:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 02:05:10PM +, Rauta, Alin wrote:
> > What if we don't use the "*" for now and document "BindCarrier" accordingly
> > to be a list of port names and no wildcard ?
> > Then, if it's the case we can a
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 02:05:10PM +, Rauta, Alin wrote:
> What if we don't use the "*" for now and document "BindCarrier" accordingly
> to be a list of port names and no wildcard ?
> Then, if it's the case we can add such "*" support for "BindCarrier" and
> think about all those corner cases
-Original Message-
From: Andrei Borzenkov [mailto:arvidj...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 12:20 PM
To: Lennart Poettering
Cc: Rauta, Alin; Kinsella, Ray; systemd Mailing List
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] Added UFD (Uplink failure detection)
support to networkd
On Wed, J
Andrei Borzenkov [mailto:arvidj...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 12:14 PM
To: Rauta, Alin
Cc: Lennart Poettering; Tom Gundersen; Kinsella, Ray; systemd Mailing List
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] Added UFD (Uplink failure detection)
support to networkd
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Wed, 28.01.15 10:13, Rauta, Alin (alin.ra...@intel.com) wrote:
>
>> Lennart, on a switch I should be able to configure more than one UFD
>> group.
>
> What precisely does this mean? WOuld those groups be orthogonal?
>
> I really would
..@poettering.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 6:59 PM
> To: Rauta, Alin
> Cc: Andrei Borzenkov; Tom Gundersen; Kinsella, Ray; systemd Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] Added UFD (Uplink failure detection)
> support to networkd
>
> On Wed, 28.01.15 17:18,
---Original Message-
From: Lennart Poettering [mailto:lenn...@poettering.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 6:59 PM
To: Rauta, Alin
Cc: Andrei Borzenkov; Tom Gundersen; Kinsella, Ray; systemd Mailing List
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] Added UFD (Uplink failure detection)
support to netwo
On Wed, 28.01.15 17:18, Rauta, Alin (alin.ra...@intel.com) wrote:
> Hi Lennart, Tom,
>
> We should also be able to add virtual devices to UFD groups, like
> Andrei mentioned in his email. In this case, do you think
> "BindCarrier=" and "Tag=" in .network files would still work ?
Again, my lates
physical devices).
Please let me know what you think.
Best Regards,
Alin
-Original Message-
From: Lennart Poettering [mailto:lenn...@poettering.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 1:53 PM
To: Andrei Borzenkov
Cc: Rauta, Alin; Kinsella, Ray; systemd Mailing List
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel]
On Wed, 28.01.15 16:48, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 28.01.15 10:13, Rauta, Alin (alin.ra...@intel.com) wrote:
> >
> >> Lennart, on a switch I should be able to configure more than one UFD
> >> group.
> >
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Wed, 28.01.15 10:13, Rauta, Alin (alin.ra...@intel.com) wrote:
>
>> Lennart, on a switch I should be able to configure more than one UFD
>> group.
>
> What precisely does this mean? WOuld those groups be orthogonal?
>
No. You have tw
On Wed, 28.01.15 10:13, Rauta, Alin (alin.ra...@intel.com) wrote:
> Lennart, on a switch I should be able to configure more than one UFD
> group.
What precisely does this mean? WOuld those groups be orthogonal?
I really would like to avoid introdcuing the "tags" concept for
now. Would a solutio
ettering.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 9:26 PM
To: Tom Gundersen
Cc: Rauta, Alin; Kinsella, Ray; systemd Mailing List
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] Added UFD (Uplink failure detection)
support to networkd
On Tue, 27.01.15 19:54, Tom Gundersen (t...@jklm.no) wrote:
> Hi Alin,
&g
On Tue, 27.01.15 19:54, Tom Gundersen (t...@jklm.no) wrote:
> Hi Alin,
>
> Thanks for working on this.
>
> I think the main concepts here make sense, but I have some comments on
> the implementation.
>
> So the main ideas are:
>
> 1) a notion of groups of links
> 2) a notion of up- and downlin
Hi Alin,
Thanks for working on this.
I think the main concepts here make sense, but I have some comments on
the implementation.
So the main ideas are:
1) a notion of groups of links
2) a notion of up- and downlinks
3) configuring downlinks if and only if at least one uplink in the
group has a c
HI,
While reading this I'm just thinking about RFC5880 ff. BFD support. Anybody in
the
networks universe already thinking about this?
Holger
- On 23 Jan, 2015, at 18:20, Alin Rauta alin.ra...@intel.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Uplink Failure Detection (UFD) is a key enhancement to networkd, that
Hi,
Uplink Failure Detection (UFD) is a key enhancement to networkd, that will
provide support for the switch use case.
The links can be configured as uplinks or as downlinks inside an UFD group.
When all uplinks for a group are down, the failure is propagated to the
downlinks, so the devices co
31 matches
Mail list logo
