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