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

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek at in.waw.pl
Thu Jan 29 20:31:23 PST 2015

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 06:49:08PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 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.
Well, how many can you have? Even with a 100 interfaces, it'll be
very fast. In practice you would use a glob or a set of globi, so
the check will be a few calls to fnmatch.

> 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
Index numbers are horrible in a configuration interface.


More information about the systemd-devel mailing list