> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 5:55 PM
> To: Zhang, Chen <chen.zh...@intel.com>
> Cc: Lukas Straub <lukasstra...@web.de>; Li Zhijian
> <lizhij...@cn.fujitsu.com>; Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com>; qemu-
> dev <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Dr. David Alan Gilbert
> <dgilb...@redhat.com>; Zhang Chen <zhangc...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 2/7] qapi/net.json: Add L4_Connection definition
>
> "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?
It can be used by net filter modules(filter mirror,filter-dump....) in the
future, that's not just for COLO.
PassthroughRule is better?
Thanks
Chen
