On 07/25/2016 02:49 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote:
❦ 25 juillet 2016 08:44 CEST, Martin Kletzander <mkletzan@redhat.com> :
"Just a vnet interface, no bridge" means you want no network. Where should the vnet be connected? The host is able to handle the routing. It seems I could just declare an interface of type "ethernet" instead of "network" to get the effect I want. I'm sorry, but I have no idea what is the end result you are trying to achieve. Could you describe what are your trying to set up without libvirt technicalities? I have a process watching libvirt event to add a route like "ip route add 192.0.2.147/32 dev vnet18" once the VM is spawned. The host is then responsible for any routing to/from the VM. I don't want the VM to be part of a bridge.
Note that once libvirt 2.1.0 is released (just entered freeze yesterday), you will be able to specify the host-side IP address for the tap device, as well as any routes to add to the host, right within the <interface> element, e.g.: <interface type='ethernet'> <source/> <ip address='192.1.2.147' prefix='32'/> <route family='ipv4' address='192.0.2.147' prefix='32' gateway='192.1.2.147'/> <source/> ... </interface> This will avoid the need to watch a libvirt event. (it's interesting that you're apparently adding a route to the tap device without assigning an IP address to it. I'd never tried that, and didn't realize it would work.)