"Zhang, Chen" <chen.zh...@intel.com> writes: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Markus Armbruster <arm...@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?
