On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 19:38 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > 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 ? Not at all, I'm just saying that making the physical interface bridging configuration a part of the virtual network description does not make the problem of listing physical interfaces go away. > > 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 I think there's a big distinction between the concepts which we want users to understand, but not such a big distinction in how they are implemented. Cheers, Mark.