On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 05:53:59PM +0000, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 18:06 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 04:06:40PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
We should allow standalone IPv4 and IPv6, or both. Each could either use DHCP or allow one or more IP address and routes.
You need to have allow for IP adddresses & routes to be present even when doing DHCP, because you need to discover what was auto-configured.
That only makes sense when reading an existing config, with the meaning 'the interface uses DHCP when it is brought up, and has the following address currently assigned to it'; it makes no sense when using the XML to configure a device.
I would prefer for that case a separate API call to ask for currently assigned addresses.
This is overly strict, because it does not allow for an interface without any addresses - something you want todo if configuring a bridge device just for guest traffic and do not want any IP on it for the host. So just need to make both optional
You can achieve the same by making interface-addressing optional where it is used.
Check out this preso for an overview if you dare.
http://lacnic.net/documentos/lacnicxi/presentaciones/autoconf_and_dhcpv6.pdf
Need to read that first.
The 'ip-addr' match rule will need separate rules for IPv4 vs IP6 addresses, since the former use '.' as a seprator, while the latter use ':'. The 'prefix-pattern' can be same, since its just a number
The valid range for prefix-pattern differs, and we should therefore between the two.
VLANs are tricky, because you can define VLANs on a physical inteface or a bond interface, and you then may want to also add a bridge on top of a VLAN, eg take 2 physical NICs, eth0 and eth1, here are some possible combes
- One NIC for storage, another for host mgmt, and put the guests all on VLANs
eth0 -> br0 IP addr used for storage eth1 -> br1 IP addr used for host mgmt eth1.42 -> br1.42 IP addr, used to talk to guests eth1.43 -> br1.43 No IP, guest traffic only eth1.44 -> br1.44 No IP, guest traffic only
I don't think that's the right notation, don't you mean 'eth1.42 -> br2' etc. ?
I think the currently approach of modelling bond, bridges and NICs makes this a little hard, particularly if the netcf API only exposes 'connections' and not interfaces, because some of these setups are not really connections, only building blocks for 'n' other connections
For that, you'd nest them where they are used, e.g. one connection to establish the base ethernet interface (that might not exist at all):
<interface type="ethernet" startmode="none"> <name>eth0</name> <mtu size="1492"/> <mac address="aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff"/> <dhcp peerdns="no"/> </interface>
and one for the bridge with a vlan enslaved:
<interface type="bridge" startmode="onboot"> <name>br0</name> ... <bridge stp="off"> <interface type="vlan" device="eth0" tag="42"/> </bridge> </interface>
Similarly, a bond enslaved to a bridge, together with a vlan on that bond also enslaved to the bridge would look like
<interface type="bridge" startmode="onboot"> <name>br0</name> ... <bridge stp="off"> <interface type="bond"> <name>bond0</name> <bond mode="active-backup"> <interface type="ethernet"> <name>eth1</name> </interface> <interface type="ethernet"> <name>eth0</name> </interface> </bond> </interface> <interface type="vlan" device="bond0" tag="42"/> </bridge> </interface>
I think this is a really unpleasant format to deal with. IMHO there should not be nesting for <bridge>/<bond> tags. They should just refer to their slave device by name. So that last example would be better shown as a set of independant intefaces <interface type='bond'> <name>bond0</name> <bond mode="active-backup"> <interface name='eth0'/> <interface name='eth1'/> </bond> </interface> <interface type='vlan'> <name>bond0.42</name> <vlan tag='42'> <interface name='bond0'> </bridge> </interface> <interface type="bridge" startmode="onboot"> <name>br0</name> ... <bridge stp="off"> <interface name="bond0.42"/> </bridge> <interface> If you added more vlans, then they just appear as more interfaces at the top level <interface type='vlan'> <name>bond0.47</name> <vlan tag='47'> <interface name='bond0'> </bridge> </interface> <interface type='vlan'> <name>bond0.48</name> <vlan tag='48'> <interface name='bond0'> </bridge> </interface> Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|