[systemd-devel] [PATCH 1/2] networkd: ipip tunell add address support

[Tom Gundersen]

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Susant Sahani <susant at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 04/14/2014 04:04 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 04/14/2014 10:31 AM, Susant Sahani wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's a name not tunnel type. Tunnel type configured in .netdev . you can
>>> put anything here . Should match the .netdev Name='XYZ'
>>>
>>> The Kind is mode which you can replace with ipip/sit/gre .
>>>
>>> file: ipip.netdev
>>> --------------------------
>>> [NetDev]
>>> Name=ipip-tun<===========Name
>>> Kind=ipip <========================== tunnel type
>>
>>
>> I thought you had switched to correct it Kind=tunnel just like you define
>> bridging, bonding and vlan there, with Tunnel= in the network section
>> setting the mode of the tunnel.
>>
> hmm . That was my original idea. You might want to check  .
>
>> I guess Tom just has to rule on this since to me how you are implementing
>> things adds an additional learning curve to administrators both since it
>> deviates from the command line as well as configuration this from /etc/net
>> configuration perspective.

Hi guys,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to this.

My thoughts have been that we should not treat tunnels differently
from other types of netdevs. I.e., we can do

# ip link add foo type bridge

or we can do

# ip link add foo type ipip


So from iproute2(8)'s point of view they behave the same (and from the
kernel's point of view they behave the same), so it makes sense to me
to treat them the same in networkd too.

Moreover, we currently have two kinds of vlan's (vlan and macvlan) and
we will undoubtedly get two kinds of bonding (bond and team). If we
were to subdivide the types of netdevs, I guess we should do that
uniformly and not only for tunnels, so either way I'm tempted to merge
this for now and then we can possibly get back to subdividing these
things later.

Hope that makes sense.

Cheers,

Tom