On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 05:44:25PM +0000, David Lutterkort wrote: > > There are 4 possible arrangements of physical NIC, bond and vlan, > > each of which can use a bridge. This gives 8 total configs > > > > 1. Physical NIC > > > > 2. Physical NIC + bridge > > > > 3. Physical NIC + bond > > > > 4. Physical NIC + bond + bridge > > > > 5. Physical NIC + vlan > > > > 6. Physical NIC + vlan + bridge > > > > 7. Physical NIC + bond + vlan > > > > 8. Physical NIC + bond + vlan + bridge > > Agreed - these examples are in line with what I had in mind. The format > for VLAN's is a bit problematic still; you have > > > <interface type="vlan"> > > <name>vlan42</name> > > <vlan tag='42'> > > <interface type='ethernet'> > > <name>eth0</name> > > </inteface> > > </vlan> > > </inteface> > > but you can't really assign an arbitrary name to a VLAN interface; it's > also not necessary to indicate the type of the base interface. > Therefore, for VLAN's, I would use the much more concise notation > > <interface type="vlan" device="eth0" tag="42"/> If you can't generally assign the VLAN name, then I think its better to make the '<name>' element optional at time of defining the interface. We still need to have a <name> element available for dumpxml and purposes of obtaining interface object handles, since that's done based on interface name. And it means applications querying the XML can rely on the interface name always being present at the top level, and for any nested <interface> elements. So rather prefer to still have the more verbose XML I describe, than the one-liner. (The nested 'type' attribute could be optional too) Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list