Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] v2:Support for adding a static route to a bridge

On 04/09/2013 04:28 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote: > OK, how about having it both ways. If we can have both mask and > prefix, why not both via and gateway. I know gateway has some > history attached to it but the new /sbin/ip uses via. I am just > trying to keep a line of text being as close to not exceeding 80 > characters as practical. Correct me if I am wrong but all of this is > suppose to be free-form and this should be valid: > > <route ip='ipv6' address='fd00:dead:beef:472::1' prefix='64' > gateway='fd00:dead:beef:10::2' /> > > Of course, when it gets written back out by code it will all be on a > "single" line. > > How about one of you other folks chiming in on this. gateway? ... > via? ... anybody (besides the two of us) care?? OK, unless someone can present a convincing argument, I am going with "via" and not "gateway". Thus, the general form is: <route family=... address=... prefix=... via=... /> </route> Why "via" and not "gateway". Well, /sbin/ip uses "via" whereas /sbin/route uses "gateway". If there was a convincing argument to keep gateway instead off via, the /sbin/ip code would be different or would be changed to gateway. BTW, IMHO, netmask could disappear also and have prefix= only.

Also, the current implementation enforces that the address specified with via= must be resolvable into a network-address which has been defined for the interface. That is, you cannot point via= off into some address that the virtualization host has no idea where it is.