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

Gene Czarcinski gene at czarc.net
Wed Apr 10 17:38:13 UTC 2013


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




More information about the libvir-list mailing list