Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] lxc: support <interface type='ethernet'>

So $VM_GW is on the same subnet as $VM_IP/24 ? Is that also the same subnet as $HOST_IP? Or is that on a completely different network? (This is all very useful, because it's pointing out that the config of the two ends definitely aren't mirror images, so we really do need independent settings for both).

> > peer only used on host machine to determine on which interface kernel > needs to send traffic Well, you *could* do the same thing with a /30 subnet for each tap (so that your routing daemon would get a bunch of /30 routes pointing to your host for all of them), but that would use up a lot more address space. > >> (I'm not sure what the guest does with 169.254.169.254) >> >> What if you instead set the host to: >> >> $HOST_IP peer $VM_IP/32 >> >> and set the guest to: >> >> $VM_IP peer $HOST_IP/32 >> route add default $HOST_IP >> >> ?? >> > I don't use this scheme... If i set $VM_IP peer $HOST_IP/32 on host > machine i think kernel recieves packet and drop it =) No - you would set that on the *guest*, not the host. I setup an LXC container in this manner and everything seemed to work properly.

> >> Anyway, it's important to know if you set the IP config on host and guest >> to >> exact mirrors of each other. It seems like the answer is "no", though, so >> i'm going to make a patch that allows what I was talking about last week: >> >> >> <interface type='ethernet'> >> <source> >> <ip address='HOST_IP' family='ipv4' peer='VM_IP' >> prefix='32'/> >> <ip address='VM_GW' family='ipv4' prefix='32'/> >> </source> >> <ip address='VM_IP' family='ipv4' peer='HOST_IP' prefix='24'/> >> <route family='ipv4' address='0.0.0.0' gateway='HOST_IP'/> >> ... >> </interface> >> >> On qemu only the address info inside <source> would be used, since we >> don't >> have control over the guest's network config. On LXC, we can set both. >> >> Does that sound usable? > > Yes, but don't cleanup please <ip address='VM_IP' family='ipv4' > peer='HOST_IP' prefix='24'/> in qemu case, because on somedays we can > launch dnsmasq or orhet software that can provide dhcp and use this > element.. An interesting point - even if libvirt itself doesn't launch the dnsmasq, it could be done by a more intelligent script (one that received the full interface XML on stdin, as I discussed in my last mail), so we should probably just ignore it rather than complaining that it's unsupported... Thanks for the info!