Re: [RFC] [nmstate] Linux routing in nmstate

On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 22:40 +0200, Edward Haas via networkmanager-list
Thank you Gris.
Comments in-line.

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 8:56 AM Gris Ge <fge redhat com> wrote:
Hi Guys,

Could you review below schema for routing in nmstate before we
add routing support in nmstate?


What is the root level key? `routing`?

        "ipv4-routes": [    # Sorted with 'table-id' then

ipv4 and ipv6 look identical to me here.
It makes sense then to have `route` as the subtree and a `family`
entry inside.
                "table-name": "main",   # Empty if no name attached
                "table-id": 254,
                "protocol": "dhcp",     # "static" or "dhcp"
                "metric": 100,
                "destination": "",
                "next-hop-iface": "eth0",       # Mandatory

This is not mandatory on `iproute2`, it is usually resolved based on
the address next hop.
I think it is mandatory for p2p links only.

I think it should be mandatory. Kernel or iproute2 may detect certain
next-hop-interfaces by looking at whether there is a direct route to
the next hop (on an interface). But that seems fragile to me, and
something you can do ad-hoc (at the moment when issuing the iproute2
command), but not so well in a description of the state (which, is
kinda timeless).

Also, it is mandatory *for a lot* of cases. It's effort to pin down
exactly when it's mandatory and when not.

Also, a mandatory paramter can later always be relaxed for bing not
mandatory. But making it mandatory later is an API break.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]