On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 05:44:27PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:48:10AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > > > On Sep 19, 2017, at 11:10 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > VSOCK requires no guest configuration, it won't be broken accidentally > > > by NetworkManager (or equivalent), it won't be mistakenly blocked by > > > guest admin/OS adding "deny all" default firewall policy. Similar > > > applies on the host side, and since there's separation from IP networking, > > > there is no possibility of the guest ever getting a channel out to the > > > LAN, even if the host is mis-configurated. > > > > We don't seem to have configuration fragility problems with other > > deployments that scale horizontally. > > > > IMO you should focus on making IP reliable rather than trying to > > move familiar IP-based services to other network fabrics. > > I don't see that ever happening, except in a scenario where a single > org is in tight control of the whole stack (host & guest), which is > not the case for cloud in general - only some on-site clouds. Can you elaborate? I think we're having trouble understanding why you can't just say "don't do that" to someone whose guest configuration is interfering with the network interface they need for NFS. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
