On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 05:47:44PM +0000, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 10:47 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
IMHO that results in a bad structure, because its anot associating the related info together, eg having an separate element to turn on/off IPV6, and then listing addresses:
<address family='ipv6'/> <ip type='ipv6' address='2001:23::2' prefix='48'/> <ip type='ipv6' address='fe:33:55::33' prefix='64'/>
vs having the direct association
<address family='ipv6'> <ip address='2001:23::2' prefix='48'/> <ip address='fe:33:55::33' prefix='64'/> </address>
the latter removes the redundancy from specifying address family in multiple places
Ok .. I agree that we should have a container tag like that - we should probably call it <protocol/> though instead of <address/>
<protocol family='ipv6'> <ip .../> <route .../> ... other ipv6 specific settings ... </protocol>
That naming works for me Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|