-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 particularly convinced we should
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
: 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 proposed
would
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
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
On Thu, 29.01.15 15:20, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net 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
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 would
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 the
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 zbys...@in.waw.pl 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
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*
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
...@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, Rauta, Alin (alin.ra
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net 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
: 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 at 2:20 PM, Rauta, Alin alin.ra...@intel.com wrote:
Hi
-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
...@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, Jan 28, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Lennart Poettering lenn
В Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:10:16 +0100
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl 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
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 zbys...@in.waw.pl 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
: 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 List
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] Added UFD (Uplink failure detection)
support to networkd
В
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net 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?
On Wed, 28.01.15 16:48, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net 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
: [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,
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
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 solution
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] [PATCH] Added UFD (Uplink failure detection)
support to networkd
On Wed, 28.01.15 16:48, Andrei Borzenkov
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 latest
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
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 downlinks
3)
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
29 matches
Mail list logo
