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 ... > > 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. e.g. connect your qemu guests to the default network, connect your Xen guests to the eth0 bridge. Cheers, Mark.