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

[Daniel Ankers]

On 29 January 2015 at 16:19, Rauta, Alin <alin.rauta at intel.com> wrote:

> So, we have:
>
> 1. BindCarrier="list of uplink ports"
>
> 2. Network.DownlinkCarrierGroup=1 in upstream interface
> Network.UplinkCarrierGroup=1 in downstream interface
>
> This would mean you have to create 2 new members for the Network structure.
>
> 3. If we are to add 2 members then we can also think of adding:
> Network.UFDGroup = 1;
> Network.UFDType = uplink/downlink;
>
> For the feature to be visible I would say 3, but I'm fine with any of them.
>

Hi all,
As a sysadmin, my preference would be for option 1 - that is that you do
the configuration in one place: the interface you are changing the
behaviour of.

I'd then imagine that networkctl could do something like:
# networkctl ufd downlink0
UFD is configured on this interface
Config File: /etc/systemd/network/downlink0.network
Interface is UP because ANY uplink is UP
    Uplinks:
           uplink0 (DOWN)
           uplink1 (UP)
# networkctl ufd uplink1
UFD is not configured on this interface or this interface is an uplink.


The problem I see with this approach is that it allows bizarre
configurations to be specified which don't make sense in practice:

e.g. 1 - Loop:
/etc/systemd/network/downlink0.network:
BindCarrier=uplink*

/etc/systemd/network/uplink0.network:
BindCarrier=downlink*

e.g. 2 - Chain
/etc/systemd/network/downlink0.network:
BindCarrier=uplink*

/etc/systemd/network/uplink0.network:
BindCarrier=thirdlink*


All this is from a user point of view, without knowing what kind of code
would be needed to support it.

Regards,
Dan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/attachments/20150129/f265dbb8/attachment.html>