|
On 04/26/2016 06:55 AM, Vasiliy Tolstov
wrote:
Yes,I see that peer disappeared in XML,but works on
first start...
Also I agree that address more for guest side and not host,do
you have some suggestions for me how to fix that before release?
The simplest fix would be to just swap peer and address in the
set-address call for QEMU, but the fact that the problem didn't leap
out at anyone indicates that the current name "peer" may not be the
best choice (even though that's what it really is in the netlink
message that sets the addresses; of course that *won't* be the case
after it's fixed - "address" will be set as "peer", and "peer" as
"address"). So, as I suggested in my earlier message, maybe we can
come up with a better name for what is now called "peer" ("address"
must stay the same, since it has already been in several releases).
Does "hostAddress" sound okay?
Either of these patches (the one to fix the missing attribute in the
XML or the one to rename the attribute) could be pushed even after
DV begins the freeze period for the release - they qualify as bug
fixes.
(I actually already have a patch to fix the missing peer attribute
in the XML, and am testing it, so the big question is whether to
change the name from "peer" to something more accurate, and if so,
what to change it to).
25 Апр 2016 г. 8:57 PM пользователь
"Laine Stump" < laine@xxxxxxxxx> написал:
I haven't
had the time to fix it yet, but wanted to point out that the
patches that are supposed to support setting the peer address
of tap/macvlan devices do not work. The problem is that the
peer attribute isn't being included when the XML for a a
domain interface is being formatted.
I also sent the following message last week as a followup to
the patch series; possibly it wasn't noticed for that reason:.
I'll make a patch to fix the formatting when I can so that I
can test my theory about address vs. peer on lxc vs qemu. But
if it's fixed by someone else in the meantime, all the better
:-)
On 04/20/2016 12:36 PM, Laine Stump wrote:
Something I've found myself worrying about lately while
driving in the car or nodding off to sleep - are the
"address" and "peer" attributes effectively used in the same
way for all network connection types and both hypervisors? I
think the answer may be "no", and if so we need to fix that
before they go out in a release.
In particular, when an lxc domain's interface has:
<ip address='192.168.128.1'/>
That is the IP address seen by the guest, not the host. So I
would assume that if an LXC domain had:
<ip address='192.168.128.1' peer='192.168.128.2'/>
that 192.168.128.1 would still be the IP address see by the
guest, and 192.168.128.2 would be the IP address on the host
side; and it should be the same for qemu.
>From what I can see of the code, though, on a qemu
domain, the IP address is set for the tap device's own IP,
meaning that it would show up on the *host* side, while the
peer address would be what the host expects to be at the
other end of the tap device (i.e. the guest side), so the
two attributes are used for the *opposite* end of the PTP
link in lxc vs. qemu.
I think that, instead, the "address" attribute should
*always* be the IP address that is seen/used by the guest,
and the "peer" attribute should be the IP address that is
seen/used by the host. (perhaps "peer" could be replaced
with some other name, like "host" or "hostAddress" to avoid
confusion? (don't like either of those alternatives, but I
don't really like peer either)).
Aside from that, I can see that these patches have been
pushed in the code that I'm running, and I've been trying to
add "peer='blah'" to interface IP addresses on my test
machine, but it's just removed from the config. Have you
tested what got pushed? Has something gone wrong?
Since there hasn't been a release with these patches
included yet, there is still time to fix it at least to be
consistent (assuming that my suspicions are correct; I've
been unable to test it myself for the reason above).
|