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 -=|