On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 07:17:04PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 18:52 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 04:44:17PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Rather you suggest that if people want to use bridging, then they should modify the default network XML config by hand and not have the latter option in the UI?
How they configure the network XML is a completely separate issue - we could easily have UI in virt-manager for creating/deleteing/editing networks in the same way we have UI for creating/deleting/editing domains.
... except you'd again have need an API for iterating physical network devices ...
You say that like its a bad thing ? Virt-manager or other apps will need to be able to enumerate physical devices somehow. So if libvirt is already providing APIs for virtual networks a VM can connect to, why not also provide APIs for physical devices (or figure out a way to let the existing virtual networks API also deal with phys devices).
That introduces this user visible notion of a bridge vs. a router, which is just horrible. But, I guess you're saying you wouldn't have it in the UI.
Just because the different bridge vs routed confoigs are represented in the libvirt XML one way, doesn't force our hand in our we present it to the user. Any network with a '<device name='eth0'> tag could be displayed in the 'physical interfaces' drop down, while any without that tag would be in the 'Network' drop down.
Well, except that you're suggesting "connect to physical interface eth0" should be a property of a virtual network, but I think it makes more sense for it to be the property of a virtual nic.
Well actually I'm suggesting 'connect to the physical network that eth0 is a part of' which doesn't feel much different to 'connect to the virtual network' NB, in all this discussion I'm talking about a scenario where the guest can be connect to eth0 via a bridge. I've not even thought about a case where you'd NAT a VIF directly into eth0 - that's probably irrelevant use case now we have proper virtual networks - i only bring it up because that is what xen's vif-route or vif-nat scripts do.
e.g. connect your qemu guests to the default network, connect your Xen guests to the eth0 bridge.
I'm just wondering whether this is making a distinction, where no real distinction exists? If you run 'ifconfig' or 'brctl show' in either of these two cases its going to look basically identical to the admin. ie, there a bridge device, with one of more NICs in it, some virtual NICs or TAPs, some physical NICs. If you run 'virsh net-list' you're only going to see one of those cases Regards, Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|