Yes, since the concept of UFD group is not exposed.
/Alin
-----Original Message-----
From: Lennart Poettering [mailto:lenn...@poettering.net]
Sent: Monday, February 2, 2015 5:24 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 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 make a ton of sense to show which
interfaces are downlinks to an uplink interface, and which interface is an
uplink for a downlink interface, all based on the relation expressed with
BindCarrier=.
> # networkctl ufd 1
> ● UFD Group: 1
> State: configured
> Uplinks:
> → 12: sw0p10
> Downlinks:
> → 51: sw0p49
> → 53: sw0p51
> → 7: sw0p5
> → 9: sw0p7
For this example, I think networkctl should show:
# networkctl status sw0p10
...
Carrier Bound By: sw0p49
sw0p51
sw0p5
sw0p7
...
# netwokctl status sw0p49
...
Carrier Bound To: sw0p10
...
If that makes sense?
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
