[libvirt] 2 major proposals to enhance libvirt and its attractivity among developers & users
Hello everyone. 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. 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>. + OvS: not a priority IMHO. Regards. -- *Jean-Christophe Manciot* *[image: Architecte réseaux et Sécurité] <https://learningnetwork.cisco.com/people/manciot.jeanchristophe/content> *[image: Network & Security Architect] <https://fr.linkedin.com/in/jeanchristophemanciot/en> <https://twitter.com/jc_manciot> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/+jeanchristopheManciot-IT/posts>
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
Hello Michal, 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. Actually, Libvirt can sit on top of libvirt and use its *REST API:* cf. *architecture <https://docs.docker.com/engine/understanding-docker/>*. Interfacing libvirt with docker would be beneficial to both parties, and also to virt-manager if you add some docker management calls into libvirt northbound API. We do support OvS: Yes, I know; I have not been clear enough; I meant it seems that OvS management is not offered in libvirt northbound API since we cannot choose the bridge type for each virtual network we create inside virt-manager. -- *Jean-Christophe Manciot* *[image: Architecte réseaux et Sécurité] <https://learningnetwork.cisco.com/people/manciot.jeanchristophe/content> *[image: Network & Security Architect] <https://fr.linkedin.com/in/jeanchristophemanciot/en> <https://twitter.com/jc_manciot> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/+jeanchristopheManciot-IT/posts> 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
-- *Jean-Christophe Manciot* *[image: Architecte réseaux et Sécurité] <https://learningnetwork.cisco.com/people/manciot.jeanchristophe/content> *[image: Network & Security Architect] <https://fr.linkedin.com/in/jeanchristophemanciot/en> <https://twitter.com/jc_manciot> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/+jeanchristopheManciot-IT/posts>
participants (2)
-
jean-christophe Manciot -
Michal Privoznik