Re: [libvirt] 2 major proposals to enhance libvirt and its attractivity among developers & users

On 02.10.2016 15:11, jean-christophe Manciot wrote: > Hello everyone. Hi, Thank you for your points. I often think about this as I'm trying to promote libvirt on every occasion. > > Going straight to the point: > 1) *add connection type: Docker* > This should not induce a lot of development since there is already an LXC > connection type. Well, in fact I think this should be vice versa. Docker is using LXCs but not through libvirt. And as much as I wish they had chosen to have libvirt backend, they hadn't. I mean, docker is a management application so in the stack it sits above libvirt. But on the other hand, one could say that about ESX too, and we have a driver for that. > > 2) add the ability to *choose the bridge type of any virtual network*: > - Linux bridge > + VPP : Cisco has recently open-sourced the virtual switch/router > <https://wiki.fd.io/view/VPP/What_is_VPP%3F> which it uses with DPDK as a > core part of some of its commercial virtual products. Its performance > should be unprecedented as compared to the current Linux bridge or even > OvS. "VPP is also applicable to many architectures (x86, ARM, and PowerPC) > and deployment environments (bare metal, VM, container)", according to > Simon Dredge in FD.io Takes Over VPP and Unites with DPDK to Accelerate NFV > Data Planes to Outright Nutty Speeds > <http://www.metaswitch.com/the-switch/fd.io-takes-over-vpp>;. Interesting, haven't known about this one. > + OvS: not a priority IMHO. We do support OvS: <interface type='bridge'> <source bridge='ovsbr'/> <virtualport type='openvswitch'/> </interface> Michal