Re: [libvirt] Network device abstraction aka virtual switch - V3

> -----Original Message----- > From: sendmail [mailto:justsendmailnothingelse@gmail.com] On Behalf Of > > Can this (the fact that the desired mode of operation will not allow for > sharing of interfaces) be determined absolutely from the existing config > information? In other words, is it safe to say that any time you have > the combination of "direct"/"private"/"802.1Qbh" that interfaces can't > be shared, but that for direct/private/<not-802.1Qbh> they *can* be > shared? > > I'm currently writing the code that picks an interface to use from the > pool; the information I have is roughly equivalent to what gets > configured for current libvirt domain interfaces: > > |<interface type='direct'> > |<source dev='XYZ' mode='private'/> > |<virtualport type='802.1Qbh"> > |<parameters > |</virtualport> > |</interface> > > I want to avoid adding an explicit config item to the XML to > allow/prevent interface sharing if at all possible (I already prevent > sharing for passthrough mode; if adding a check for private mode with > virtualport type='802.1Qbh' would be enough, then I'm happy) Yes, I think that would be enough. BH does not use passthrou mode because it does not need/want to put the lower dev into promiscuous mode. Adding a config item would be more flexible, but as of now only BH would use it (there are no other cases I can think of), therefore it does not seem necessary.