[systemd-devel] [PATCH] Added UFD (Uplink failure detection) support to networkd

[Lennart Poettering]

On Wed, 28.01.15 16:48, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidjaar at gmail.com) wrote:

> 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
> >> group.
> >
> > 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.

Hmm, if they don't affect each other, then they *are* orthogonal.

Now I am really confused...

> 
> > 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
> >
> > --
> > Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
> > _______________________________________________
> > systemd-devel mailing list
> > systemd-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel


Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat