On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 10:46 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:59:20PM +0000, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 21:32 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
How do you deal with IPv6 currently ?
With lots of Aspirin (actually, not at all)
I was thinking of sugesting an attribute
<ip type="ipv6" address="2001:23::2" prefix="24"/>
but I think its possibly better to have a different element name
<ip6 address="2001:23::2" prefix="24"/>
since the former would not work if we ever needed to worry about non-IP based addresses.
Either works for me, with a slight preference for the first version, on purely esthetic grounds. And even if we go with that, there's nothing keeping us from adding an <ipx> element as an alternative to the <ip> element in the future.
Or a 3rd option is to group addresses by family
<addresses family='ipv4'> <ip address='122.0.0.3' prefix='24'/> <ip address='24.24.224.4' prefix='24'/> </addresses> <addresses family='ipv6'> <ip address='2001:23::2' prefix='48'/> <ip address='fe:33:55::33' prefix='64'/> </addresses> <adddresses family='ipx'> <ipx address='2423.4521.66.3.252.'/> </address>
I don't see that that buys us anything that we wouldn't have with <ip type='ipv4' address='122.0.0.3' prefix='24'/> <ip type='ipv4' address='24.24.224.4' prefix='24'/> <ip type='ipv6' address='2001:23::2' prefix='48'/> <ip type='ipv6' address='fe:33:55::33' prefix='64'/> <ipx address='2423.4521.66.3.252.'/> _maybe_ enclosed in a <addresses> container tag, but I don't think that's needed. David