[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] Network device abstraction aka virtual switch - V3

On 07/03/2011 03:42 PM, Christian Benvenuti (benve) wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: sendmail [mailto:justsendmailnothingelse gmail com] On Behalf Of

Can this (the fact that the desired mode of operation will not allow for
sharing of interfaces) be determined absolutely from the existing config
information? In other words, is it safe to say that any time you have
the combination of "direct"/"private"/"802.1Qbh" that interfaces can't
be shared, but that for direct/private/<not-802.1Qbh>  they *can* be

I'm currently writing the code that picks an interface to use from the
pool; the information I have is roughly equivalent to what gets
configured for current libvirt domain interfaces:

|<interface type='direct'>
|<source dev='XYZ' mode='private'/>
|<virtualport type='802.1Qbh">

I want to avoid adding an explicit config item to the XML to
allow/prevent interface sharing if at all possible (I already prevent
sharing for passthrough mode; if adding a check for private mode with
virtualport type='802.1Qbh' would be enough, then I'm happy)
Yes, I think that would be enough.

BH does not use passthrou mode because it does not need/want
to put the lower dev into promiscuous mode.
Adding a config item would be more flexible, but as of now only
BH would use it (there are no other cases I can think of), therefore
it does not seem necessary.

Great! It's always easier to add something later if we determine it's necessary, rather than putting it in now and learning later that it's redundant or (even worse) incorrect.

Thanks for the firsthand info.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]