For now I'm concerned with the FDB entries. They are in the .network files following the logic of [Address] & [Route] sections. /Alin
-----Original Message----- From: systemd-devel [mailto:systemd-devel-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" Sent: 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 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 quite large with multiple entries along with all the other bridging features. At this point in time I'm actually wondering if it would not be better to introduce type .bridge networkd file to cover all current and future bridge features ( for example you probably want to be able to define that 802.1ad tag in an [Bridge] section as well right? ) as opposed to be cluttering the .network file with all of those options. Do you have any number of how many various type bridge entries will need to be supported by networkd in the long run? JBG _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
