Re: [libvirt] RFC: configuring host interfaces with libvirt
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 13:34 -0800, Kaitlin Rupert wrote:
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>
>>> I don't think we want to define a bridge here, but more that an
>>> interface is shared - i.e. this is a property of eth2.
>
> Note this line.
>
>>> The main concern is that this is the way I'd expect NetworkManager to
>>> support it - i.e. that you could configure NetworkManager to share eth0,
>>> rather than ask it to create br0 and add eth0 to it.
>>>
>>> If you just want to create a bridge, you can creati a virtual network.
Sorry to chime in so late... the virtual network support only allows
the user to define bridges with NAT/routed forwarding.
I tripped over this the first time, too; to put words in Mark's mouth,
he meant 'bridge' here in the sense of a 'vritual network'. He calls a
bridge with one enslaved physical NIC a 'shared network interface' (and
doesn't much care for bridges with more NIC's ;)
After talking to NM people, there doesn't seem to be a concern with NM
compat - they are fine with the more explicit representation of a
bridge.
Would the still behave as a virtual network pool in this case? If
multiple guests are tied to the same bridge, it would be useful to
represent this as some kind of pool or grouping.
Not sure what you mean here ... with all this, you'd still set your
guests up the way you do today, with appropriate sources for their
network interfaces, e.g. <source bridge='br0'/>
David