On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:01 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > I do like the idea of using the virtual port construct even in the >> > initial <interface> only case. For example: >> > >> > <interface type='bridge'> >> > <bridge name='br0'> >> > <virtualport type="openvswitch"> >> > <parameters interfaceid='xyzzy'/> >> > </virtualport> >> > </interface> > > NB, type='bridge' technically refers to the *concept* of bridging > an interface to a LAN, not the implemntation of Linux software > bridging. Thus it shouldn't change for OpenVSwitch which is also > providing bridging to the LAN here. That makes sense. We'll stick with the example above. Dan > > Regards, > Daniel > -- > |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| > |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| > |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| > |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dan Wendlandt Nicira Networks: www.nicira.com twitter: danwendlandt ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list