> The current modes are: > > <forward layer='network' mode='route|nat'/> > > (in addition to not listing any mode, which equates to "isolated") > > Here are suggested new modes: Has anybody considered the migration requirements of networks in this new layout? If you move a machine attached to a 'route|nat' network to another Host you need to extend the network to the new Host and eventually you need to move the supporting processes that hand out the IP addresses/DNS addresses etc (if you're decommissioning a Host server for example). If you try to start a copy of the network on the new host, then it generally clashes with the pre-existing routing It would be useful to be able to extend a network onto another Host somehow and be able to migrate the supporting processes (DNSMasq, IP addressing, etc) between Hosts. (And obviously remove extensions as required as well). Perhaps this suggests that the address and route management systems need separating from the definition of the bridge network. (There's no real reason why the address management systems couldn't be attached to macvtap and vepa networks as well as basic bridges). Rgs Neil Wilson -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list