[systemd-devel] [PATCH] Added UFD (Uplink failure detection) support to networkd
arvidjaar at gmail.com
Wed Jan 28 05:48:58 PST 2015
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Lennart Poettering
<lennart at poettering.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 28.01.15 10:13, Rauta, Alin (alin.rauta at intel.com) wrote:
>> Lennart, on a switch I should be able to configure more than one UFD
> What precisely does this mean? WOuld those groups be orthogonal?
No. You have two different VLANs; uplink group 1 connects to to VLAN1,
uplink group 2 connects to VLAN2. They are not orthogonal in any way
and exist at the same time. If group 1 goes down, it does not affect
group 2 in any way.
> I really would like to avoid introdcuing the "tags" concept for
> now. Would a solution where you give the uplinks appropriate names
> (like "uplink0", "uplinkXYZ", "uplink_waldo" and so on) suffice, when
> you can then refer to them in a .network file you apply to the
> downlinks as "BindCarrier=uplink*"?
> BindCarrier= would take a list of interface names, possibly with
> globs. If you want to up and down a link "foo" if at least one of the
> links "bar", "quux", "piep", "miau1", "miau2" are up, you could write
> this as "BindCarrier=bar quux piep miau*".
> What would introducing the "tag" concept give you beyond this very
> simple schreme described above?
> Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
> systemd-devel mailing list
> systemd-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
More information about the systemd-devel