> -----Original Message----- > From: sendmail [mailto:justsendmailnothingelse@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Laine Stump > Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 10:36 PM > To: Christian Benvenuti (benve) > Cc: Libvirt > Subject: Re: Network device abstraction aka virtual switch - > V3 > > On 06/16/2011 09:56 PM, Christian Benvenuti (benve) wrote: > > Laine Stump wrote: > >> Interface Pools > >> --------------- > >> > >> In many cases, a single host network may have multiple physical > >> network devices associated with it (especially in the case of an > >> SRIOV-capable ethernet card, which will have several "virtual > >> functions" associated with a single physical ethernet connection). > The > >> host will at least want to balance the load of multiple guests > between > >> these multiple devices, and may even require (in the case of > >> passthrough mode, for example) that only a single guest interface be > >> attached to each host device. > > Even though vnlink does not use 'passthrough' (it uses 'private' > mode), > > it > > actually comes with the same requirement: the lower device cannot be > > shared. > >> In the case of mode='passthrough', only one guest interface can be > >> connected to a device at a time. > > In the case of BH that I mentioned above, the libvirt/BH code does > > not currently enforce it, but it does have the same requirement. > > Christian, > > Can this (the fact that the desired mode of operation will not allow > for > sharing of interfaces) be determined absolutely from the existing > config > information? In other words, is it safe to say that any time you have > the combination of "direct"/"private"/"802.1Qbh" that interfaces can't > be shared, but that for direct/private/<not-802.1Qbh> they *can* be > shared? > > I'm currently writing the code that picks an interface to use from the > pool; the information I have is roughly equivalent to what gets > configured for current libvirt domain interfaces: > > | <interface type='direct'> > | <source dev='XYZ' mode='private'/> > | <virtualport type='802.1Qbh"> > | <parameters > | </virtualport> > | </interface> > > I want to avoid adding an explicit config item to the XML to > allow/prevent interface sharing if at all possible (I already prevent > sharing for passthrough mode; if adding a check for private mode with > virtualport type='802.1Qbh' would be enough, then I'm happy) Yes, I think that would be enough. BH does not use passthrou mode because it does not need/want to put the lower dev into promiscuous mode. Adding a config item would be more flexible, but as of now only BH would use it (there are no other cases I can think of), therefore it does not seem necessary. /Chris -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list