* Daniel Veillard (veillard@redhat.com) wrote:
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 09:47:17AM -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
* Gerhard Stenzel (gstenzel@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 12:13 -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
I'd suggest to use this patch as a base for triggering the setup protocol with the 802.1Qb{g|h} switch.
Here is a RFC patch, which demonstrates how libvirt could communicate with lldpad via the lldptool for the 802.1Qbg case. Please note, that there is currently no public available version of lldptool which accepts this command line. This is also work in progress.
Can this be made a library instead of an exec() based cmdline interface?
Hum, actually from a libvirt deployment POV, depending on an unstable library is way worse than depending on a command line interface. I.e. the library would make sense only if we had some serious garantee of stabilities, API/ABI garantees, etc ... In the absence of someone firmly commiting to this, a CLI is less dangerous. So at least in a first step an exec() based interface sounds the right approach to me.
Fair enough (you're in way better position to see the implications). I know other bits had moved to library interfaces, so thought I'd make the suggestion. Main thing that is worth pointing out is this is moving away from a single netlink based message interface, and towards a messaging interface per type (VNLink, Qbg...) thanks, -chris