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

[Gris Ge <fge redhat com>]

On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 05:58:01PM +0100, Thomas Haller wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-03-04 at 22:11 +0800, Gris Ge wrote:
> >  * Top tree is 'routes', and subtree is 'ipv4' and 'ipv6'.
> >    Even the IPv4 and IPv6 route entry are mostly identical, but we
> > need
> >    schema to differentiate the 'destination' address type in a simple
> >    way.
>
> Hi,
>
>   {
>     routes: {
>       [0] = {
>         addr-family: ipv4,
>         ...
>       },
>       ...
>     },
>   } 
>
> I think the answer is "yes".
I agree. But Edward has some concern about how to enforce the
'destination' format if we unified the route, which I think we can lose
the schema on the destination to string let runtime do the syntax check.
> "protocol" possibly should still be renamed to "source". Or "origin"?
The origin is better. Source might confuse with source routing.
> best,
> Thomas



-- 
Gris Ge

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature