On 13/03/2018 15:30, Michal Privoznik wrote:> The default GW depends on
the IP address you assigned to your network:
<ip address='192.168.122.1' netmask='255.255.255.0'/>
This says the default GW is 192.168.122.1/24. However, you can insert
other routes too:
<route address="192.168.222.0" prefix="24" gateway="192.168.122.2"/>
For handling DNS, you need to focus on <dns/> element. For instance, to
set a different forwarder than GW:
<dns>
<forwarder addr="8.8.8.8"/>
</dns>
For NATed/routed networks, sure. However, I have an isolated network
like that (without the "forward" element):
<network>
<name>net1</name>
<uuid>dcf5c09b-dcb6-4fd3-86b8-6312a7b94bf6</uuid>
<bridge name='virbr1' stp='on' delay='0'/>
<mac address='52:54:00:97:1b:15'/>
<domain name='TEST'/>
<ip address='192.168.10.1' netmask='255.255.255.0'>
<dhcp>
<range start='192.168.10.128' end='192.168.10.254'/>
</dhcp>
</ip>
</network>
When the client asks for an IP via DHCP, it obtain a valid IP address
but *no* gateway. Is it the expected behavior for an isolated network?
From my understanding, network isolation is accomplished by firewall
rules in the FORWARD table, rather than by not assigning the gateway IP
address to clients.
No, that was just a proposal. RFC, a discussion how should we implement
some special features of DHCP. Those are not patches and in fact patches
implementing that were never merged.
Michal
Ok, thank you Michal.
--
Danti Gionatan
Supporto Tecnico
Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it
email: g.danti@xxxxxxxxxx - info@xxxxxxxxxx
GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8
_______________________________________________
libvirt-users mailing list
libvirt-users@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-users
