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

[Markus Armbruster]

"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?