On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 01:08:05PM +0100, Neil Wilson wrote: > On 24 May 2010 13:00, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The current network code only supports NAT, or a separate > > routed subnet & thus currently require a non-clashing subnet. > > Proxy ARP is a future RFE, so not a problem wrt this patchset > > currently. > > So you shouldn't attempt to use libvirt network for larger scale environments? I didn't say that ! Both the NAT mode and routed mode are usable in many deployments, regardless of scale. We simply don't yet have support for Proxy ARP, but we would like to add this in the future. Realistically though, the vast majority of deployments use bridging, so lack of proxy arp isn't a huge showstopper. The admin can also easily create a bridge without any NICs enslaved, set proxy arp for that, and then tell libvirt to attach guests to that. Regards, Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://deltacloud.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