David Lutterkort wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 13:34 -0800, Kaitlin Rupert wrote:
I don't think we want to define a bridge here, but more that an interface is shared - i.e. this is a property of eth2. Note this line.
The main concern is that this is the way I'd expect NetworkManager to support it - i.e. that you could configure NetworkManager to share eth0, rather than ask it to create br0 and add eth0 to it.
If you just want to create a bridge, you can creati a virtual network. Sorry to chime in so late... the virtual network support only allows
Mark McLoughlin wrote: the user to define bridges with NAT/routed forwarding.
I tripped over this the first time, too; to put words in Mark's mouth, he meant 'bridge' here in the sense of a 'vritual network'. He calls a bridge with one enslaved physical NIC a 'shared network interface' (and doesn't much care for bridges with more NIC's ;)
Ah, okay. This makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
After talking to NM people, there doesn't seem to be a concern with NM compat - they are fine with the more explicit representation of a bridge.
Would the still behave as a virtual network pool in this case? If multiple guests are tied to the same bridge, it would be useful to represent this as some kind of pool or grouping.
Not sure what you mean here ... with all this, you'd still set your guests up the way you do today, with appropriate sources for their network interfaces, e.g. <source bridge='br0'/>
Would there be the bridge equivalents of virConnectListNetworks()/virConnectListDefinedNetworks(): a way to list the available bridges? After reading through all the mails again, I believe this is what's being proposed, so I think I might have answered my own question. =) -- Kaitlin Rupert IBM Linux Technology Center kaitlin@linux.vnet.ibm.com