On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> wrote:

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