Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v4 07/17] Domain network devices can now have a <gateway> element
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 04:39:02PM +0300, Dmitry Guryanov wrote:
On Thursday 13 November 2014 10:33:06 Cédric Bosdonnat wrote:
> Network interfaces devices and host devices with net capabilities can
> now have an IPv4 and/or an IPv6 address configured.
I would rename "gateway" to "route", so it will mean an entry in a
routing
table. Because there will certainly be people, who would want to configure
routing table more precisely than just setting default gateway.
Something like
<route to="10.10.0.0/16" via="10.3.0.1">
Routing table is separated from devices configuration in the kernel, and some
route types don't have output device, for example blackhole. So maybe it's
better to move route from interface definition to outer scope and add "dev"
parameter.
Hmm, if you have multiple IP addresses per device, you I guess you can
also have multiple default routes - one for each subnet range really
eg
<ip address='192.168.122.5' prefix='24'/>
<ip address='10.0.2.4' prefix='24'/>
<gateway ipv4='192.168.122.1'/>
<gateway ipv4='192.0.2.1'/>
So I at leaast agree that we need more than just a single <gateway> per
address type. I do like the routs associated with the <interface>
though. I'd be inclined to have
<route family="ipv4|ipv6" address="10.0.0.0"
prefix="16" via="10.0.0.1"/>
under the <interface>. The address + prefix attrs could be optional if
there is only a single <ip> for a given family. eg in the simple case
we could get this for a "default route"
<route family="ipv4|ipv6" via="10.0.0.1"/>
If we ever find a real world need to have routes not associated with a
device, we can address that then.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|