[systemd-devel] [PATCH] Add FDB support

Lennart Poettering lennart at poettering.net
Fri Dec 12 07:07:23 PST 2014

On Fri, 12.12.14 09:07, Rauta, Alin (alin.rauta at intel.com) wrote:

> What do you think about the following transformations:
> [FDBEntry]           =====> [FDBNeigh]

We try to avoid acronyms and abbreviations unless they are very widely
established. Hence I am not convinced "Neigh" is something we should

Given that "fdb" and "entry" are commonly used I think [FDBEntry]
would be fine.

If I get this right "fdb" only makes sense in a bridge context,
correct? Maybe [BridgeFDBEntry] instead?

> FDBControlled    =====> FDBCleanTable
> VLAN                      =====> VLANId
> ?
> When FDBCleanTable is set to yes, networkd will clean the existing FDB entries for current port and FDBCleanTable will have no impact on [FDBNeigh] sections ....

Hmm, networkd takes ownership of the network interfaces it is
configured to manage, hence I am wondering whether the flushing of the
FDB should not be the implied logic when it takes possession of an
interface? Is there a good usecase why one would *not* want this? I
mean, if networkd would simply flush the fdb of bridge devices
unconditionally when it initializes that interface, would that be a


Lennart Poettering, Red Hat

More information about the systemd-devel mailing list