On 12/12/2014 04:12 PM, Rauta, Alin wrote:
Hi,
[BrigdeFDB] can be also fine. It's just that [BridgeFDB] makes you think at the
entire forwarding database table and you are actually defining only one entry.
[BridgeFDBEntry] makes you think at just one entry in that table.
Hmm
So it can grow quite large with multiple entries along with all the
other bridging features.
At this point in time I'm actually wondering if it would not be better
to introduce type .bridge networkd file to cover all current and future
bridge features ( for example you probably want to be able to define
that 802.1ad tag in an [Bridge] section as well right? ) as opposed to
be cluttering the .network file with all of those options.
Do you have any number of how many various type bridge entries will need
to be supported by networkd in the long run?
JBG
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
