[libvirt] Need to re-work final "peer address" patches and re-push them
Jiri Denemark
jdenemar at redhat.com
Thu May 12 07:58:38 UTC 2016
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:57:36 -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
> I reverted these three patches that introduced and enabled a "peer"
> attribute for type='ethernet' interface <ip> elements prior to the
> release of 1.3.4 with the intent of fixing/re-posting them after
> release, but forgot until today:
>
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2016-April/msg01995.html
>
> I have patches for most of the bugs, but the one problem that still
> doesn't have resolution is the naming of the "peer" attribute. In my
> opinion, having the two address attributes named "address" and "peer"
> makes it ambiguous which address is for the guest side and which for the
> host side (especially since the attribute that has been named "peer"
> would be set to the "address" in the netlink command, and the attribute
> named "address" would be set to "peer" in the netlink command :-O).
>
> Since "address" is an existing attribute, and already used for the guest
> side IP address in lxc type='bridge' interfaces, it must remain as-is.
> In order to make it obvious that the new address is for the host side of
> the tap (or veth pair in the case of lxc), I propose calling it either
> "host", or "hostAddress", e.g:
>
> <ip address='192.168.123.43' host='192.168.123.1' prefix='25'/>
>
> or
>
> <ip address='192.168.123.4' hostAddress='192.168.123.1' prefix='25'/>
IMO "host" is better. After all it's an attribute of "ip" element so
it's obvious we're talking about addresses here.
Jirka
More information about the libvir-list
mailing list