Re: [netcf-devel] [libvirt] [RFC] Reporting host interface status/statistics via netcf/libvirt, and listing active vs. inactive interfaces

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 01:27:14PM -0700 David Lutterkort wrote: While talking about the relax-ng schema, I would like to again raise my question earlier raised at the netcf-devel-list in order to get some input from the libvirt developers on this matter as well. I am a bit critical to the policy restrictions of the current incarnation of the netcf API. Currently, a interface (or connection) has to have an IP address and a bridge has to have one or more interfaces attached to it. Not having the IP address restriction may collide head on with the connection-approach for some, as a connection probably have to be addressable. I however argue that this severly limits the uses for netcf, say for example to only bridge two interfaces without caring (and perhaps not wanting) to be something other then a package forwarder and not care about IP-address collisions. And in another case, the addressing is done using something other then IP. For the bridges without added interfaces, an example is libvirt that have these private networks that I don't think I have to go in to in detail. My strongest point in both cases is that both restrictions is policy-driven. If for example an option in a configuration file for an interface is not recognized by netcf, it may be simply ignored and later merged back in to the configuration if this is updated through netcf. The restrictions in IP-addresses and bridge members can however make an existing configuration clash with netcf. In the end, there is nothing that stops end applications to implement this policy if required. As said, I raised this question on netcf-devel, and David and I have been having some back-and-forth about this [1]. I also promised to raise this question here as per request about a month ago. What are the views of the libvirt community? Is netcf planned to be used for the "isolated" libvirt-networks? Will there be a case where a forwarding bridge perferably would lack an IP address? Other thoughts? Best regards, Jonas [1] https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/netcf-devel/2009-May/thread.html https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/netcf-devel/2009-June/000012.html https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/netcf-devel/2009-June/000013.html -- Jonas Eriksson Consultant at AS/EAB/FLJ/IL Combitech AB Dlvsjv, Sweden