Hugh Brock wrote: >Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >>3. The way I think you re suggesting - a libvirt server on every remote >> host which calls into the regular libvirt internal driver model to >> proxy remote calls. So even if the hypervisor in question provides a >> remote network management API, we will always use the local API and >> do *all* remote networking via the libvirt server >> >> http://people.redhat.com/berrange/libvirt/libvirt-arch-remote-2.png >> >This strikes me as *much* easier to manage, and the most consistent >thus far with the idea that libvirt should remain as >hypervisor-neutral as possible. I guess the management issue is going to be versioning the protocol. If the protocol is just a direct mapping of vir* calls and structures then you'll quickly end up in a situation where even the smallest change requires you to upgrade the world or old versions have to be maintained indefinitely.