Re: [libvirt] RFC: configuring host interfaces with libvirt
On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 10:59 +0100, Marius Tomaschewski wrote:
> >For now, I want to stay out of setting up static routes, but
I think
> >that has to come sooner or later.
It is OK to limit routes to the default route for now, but IMO
it is better to use separate xml nodes, e.g.:
<static ipaddr="192.168.0.5" [netmask,broadcast,...] />
and something like:
<route gateway="192.168.0.1" /> # implicit destination=default
<route destination="default" gateway="192.168.0.1" />
rather than mixing the gateway into the IP address related attributes:
<static ipaddr="192.168.0.5" gateway="192.168.0.1"
netmask="255.255.255.0"/>
because as soon as you start to support static routes, there are two
nodes/places where the default gateway can be defined.
Yeah, that's a good catch; I'll change the schema accordingly.
Another way would be to say, there is either no STP parameter at all
(and use always stp="off" + fowarddelay=0) or only the STP parameter
and the backend implementation has to handle the another parameters
and write them "using real world defaults" into the ifcfg file.
A third option would be to allow specifying parameters that only _some_
backends support, and produce an error, e.g. if you try to set maxage on
Fedora. We don't necessarily have to support only the lcd.
David