On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 19:38 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 07:17:04PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 18:52 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 04:44:17PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Rather you suggest that if people want to use bridging, then they should modify the default network XML config by hand and not have the latter option in the UI?
How they configure the network XML is a completely separate issue - we could easily have UI in virt-manager for creating/deleteing/editing networks in the same way we have UI for creating/deleting/editing domains.
... except you'd again have need an API for iterating physical network devices ...
You say that like its a bad thing ?
Not at all, I'm just saying that making the physical interface bridging configuration a part of the virtual network description does not make the problem of listing physical interfaces go away.
e.g. connect your qemu guests to the default network, connect your Xen guests to the eth0 bridge.
I'm just wondering whether this is making a distinction, where no real distinction exists? If you run 'ifconfig' or 'brctl show' in either of these two cases its going to look basically identical to the admin. ie, there a bridge device, with one of more NICs in it, some virtual NICs or TAPs, some physical NICs. If you run 'virsh net-list' you're only going to see one of those cases
I think there's a big distinction between the concepts which we want users to understand, but not such a big distinction in how they are implemented. Cheers, Mark.