[Libvir] Virtual networking

[Hugh Brock]

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