Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ncm-nmstate: VLAN name pattern too restrictive #1678

Open
jouvin opened this issue Apr 16, 2024 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #1679
Open

ncm-nmstate: VLAN name pattern too restrictive #1678

jouvin opened this issue Apr 16, 2024 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #1679
Assignees

Comments

@jouvin
Copy link
Contributor

jouvin commented Apr 16, 2024

ncm-nmstate changes in #1667 recognizes as a VLAN any interface whose name starts with vlan but imposes a . before the VLAN ID, despite it is not an OS or nmstate requirement.

jouvin added a commit to jouvin/configuration-modules-core that referenced this issue Apr 16, 2024
- Does not require a . between interface name and VLAN ID

Fixes quattor#1678
jouvin added a commit to jouvin/configuration-modules-core that referenced this issue Apr 16, 2024
- Does not require a . between interface name and VLAN ID

Fixes quattor#1678
jouvin added a commit to jouvin/configuration-modules-core that referenced this issue Apr 16, 2024
- Does not require a . between interface name and VLAN ID

Fixes quattor#1678
@jouvin jouvin linked a pull request Apr 16, 2024 that will close this issue
jouvin added a commit to jouvin/configuration-modules-core that referenced this issue Apr 16, 2024
- Does not require a . between interface name and VLAN ID

Fixes quattor#1678
jouvin added a commit to jouvin/configuration-modules-core that referenced this issue Apr 16, 2024
- Does not require a . between interface name and VLAN ID

Fixes quattor#1678
@jrha
Copy link
Member

jrha commented Apr 18, 2024

I believe that the kernel no-longer has any restriction other on interface naming other than being 15 characters or less, so we are free to follow any convention we can agree on.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants