On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 01:26 +0000, John Levon wrote: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 01:13:18AM +0000, David Lutterkort wrote: > > > * Should this even be done as part of libvirt ? It seems like a very > > generic network config tool, and libvirt merely the conduit to exposing > > this through an API, most importantly, a remotable API. > > My humble opinion would be "no". This argument equally applies to > everything you could configure on a host, and I don't think anyone wants > to turn libvirt into libmanagement. Would it be feasible for libvirtd to > have a 'passthrough' mode that feeds unknown stuff off to some other > daemon? > > Especially in this case - interface management is very complex as you > note. I am not disagreeing with you, but either way, libvirt needs _some_ way to control host interfaces. And seeing how there are no tools that do something like the above in a portable way, it seems worthwhile, too. The question is probably more whether some of this functionality should be split out in a way that can be used independenty of libvirt. David -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list