Re: [Libvir] Virtual networking

[Hugh Brock <hbrock redhat com>]

Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Hugh Brock wrote:
> > Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > 3. The way I think you re suggesting - a libvirt server on every remote
> > >    host which calls into the regular libvirt internal driver model to
> > >    proxy remote calls. So even if the hypervisor in question provides a
> > >    remote network management API, we will always use the local API and
> > >    do *all* remote networking via the libvirt server
> > >
> > >    http://people.redhat.com/berrange/libvirt/libvirt-arch-remote-2.png
> > This strikes me as *much* easier to manage, and the most consistent 
> > thus far with the idea that libvirt should remain as 
> > hypervisor-neutral as possible.
>
> I guess the management issue is going to be versioning the protocol.  If 
> the protocol is just a direct mapping of vir* calls and structures then 
> you'll quickly end up in a situation where even the smallest change 
> requires you to upgrade the world or old versions have to be maintained 
> indefinitely.
>
> That's not saying I don't like the idea.
True enough... we're guaranteeing we're going to have backwards 
compatibility problems. On the other hand the libvirt API is supposed to 
be held pretty stable. DV, any thoughts?

--H