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.
Reworked update "real soon now".
Gene