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

Andrei Borzenkov arvidjaar at gmail.com
Thu Jan 29 07:49:08 PST 2015

В Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:10:16 +0100
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek at in.waw.pl> пишет:

> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 02:05:10PM +0000, Rauta, Alin wrote:
> > What if we don't use the "*" for now and document "BindCarrier" accordingly to be a list of port names and no wildcard ?
> > Then, if it's the case we can add such "*" support for "BindCarrier" and think about all those corner cases ?
> What about interpreting the wildcard dynimically instead? If
> eth3 goes down, look at all interfaces which have BindCarrier set, and
> check with glob if their BindCarrier setting matches eth3, and act
> accordingly.

This means that every time any interface (dis)appears you must go
through all existing BindCarrier statements and check whether they
apply. This is really ugly. For this reasons I believe uplink group
should be first class citizen also internally.

And how do you set properties for it? Which of BindCarrierMode
statements in different link (or are they network?) files apply if
they differ? What if you need to add more properties?

What about

DownlinkCarrierGroup=1 in upstream interface
UplinkCarrierGroup=1 in downstream interface

This creates uplink group 1 and binds interfaces to it. Now you only
need to care if there is another interface definition that has the same
group number.

But you still need ability to set group properties (although in
practice every switch I have seen is using policy "all" - anyone can
give compelling use case for using "any"?), so yes, we may need support
configuration object for it. But the first step could be default to
policy "all" which does not require any configuration.

More information about the systemd-devel mailing list