On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: > On Wed, 06.11.13 02:57, Tom Gundersen (t...@jklm.no) wrote: > >> >> Gateway=192.168.1.1 >> >> Address=label@192.168.1.23/24 >> >> Address=fe80::9aee:94ff:fe3f:c618/64 >> > >> > Hmm, what's the plan regarding confguration of scopes and other >> > attributes of addresses? Is the "label@" syntax your invention or has >> > this been used elsewhere (I am not opposed to the syntax, just curious). >> >> Good question. The @ syntax is my invention, but i'm very happy to >> change it if anyone has a better suggestion. For the other properties >> we might want, I would really like to find a syntax to get them all on >> one line. I'll try figure out a more or less exhaustive list of the >> properties we might want to support and suggest a syntax for it. In >> the meantime I'll commit this without the "label@" support, as the >> rest should be uncontroversial, and then we can add back the labeling >> when we are sure it is the way we want it. > > I have my suspicions that that won't work out since there already are > quite a few properties for addresses, no? There's scope, flags, > label. For Point-To-Point stuff the address needs to be paired with a > local one, and in other cases with a broadcast address. We should at > least try to normalize this into different sections, no? > > Something that might work is to allow seperate [Address] sections for > the complicated cases on top of Address= for the usual cases?
I now pushed this stuff out, and I agree that we will end up needing separate [Address] (and also [Route]) sections in addition to the simple Address=address/prefixlen and Gateway=address in the [Network] section. Cheers, Tom _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
