Re: [PATCH V4 2/7] qapi/net.json: Add L4_Connection definition

[Dr. David Alan Gilbert]

* Markus Armbruster (armbru@redhat.com) wrote:
> "Zhang, Chen" <chen.zhang@intel.com> writes:
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
> [...]
> >> Naming the argument type L4_Connection is misleading.
> >> 
> >> Even naming the match arguments L4_Connection would be misleading.
> >> "Connection" has a specific meaning in networking.  There are TCP
> >> connections.  There is no such thing as an UDP connection.
> >> 
> >> A TCP connection is uniquely identified by a pair of endpoints, i.e. by 
> >> source
> >> address, source port, destination address, destination port.
> >> Same for other connection-oriented protocols.  The protocol is not part of
> >> the connection.  Thus, L4_Connection would be misleading even for the
> >> connection-oriented case.
> >> 
> >> You need a named type for colo-passthrough-add's argument because you
> >> share it with colo-passthrough-del.  I'm not sure that's what we want (I'm
> >> going to write more on that in a moment).  If it is what we want, then 
> >> please
> >> pick a another, descriptive name.
> >
> > What do you think the "L4BypassRule" or "NetworkRule" ?
> 
> NetworkRule is too generic.
> 
> What about ColoPassthroughRule?

Which is a bit specific; there's not actually anything Colo specific in
there; can I suggest 'L4FlowSpec';  I think there should also be
a separate type that represents an IP address+port, so that what you end
up with is:

  IPFlowSpec
     ID
     Protocol
     Source
     Dest

Dave

-- 
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK