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

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

See my comments inline.

Thank you,

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Laine Stump" <laine laine org>
> To: "Libvirt" <libvir-list redhat com>
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 3:29:08 AM
> Subject: [libvirt] Network device abstraction aka virtual switch - V3
> This is a followup to
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-April/msg00591.html
> (and an even earlier draft) which I alluded to here:
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-June/msg00383.html
> Network device abstraction aka virtual switch - V3
> ==================================================
> The <interface> element of a guest's domain config in libvirt has a
> <source> element that describes what resources on a host will be used
> to connect the guest's network interface to the rest of the
> world. This is very flexible, allowing several different types of
> connection (virtual network, host bridge, direct macvtap connection to
> physical interface, qemu usermode, user-defined via an external
> script), but currently has the problem that unnecessary details of the
> host resources are embedded into the guest's config; if the guest is
> migrated to a different host, and that host has a different hardware
> or network config (or possibly the same hardware, but that hardware is
> currently in use by a different guest), the migration will fail.
> I am proposing a change to libvirt's network XML that will allow us to
> (optionally - old configs will remain valid) remove the host details
> from the guest's domain XML (which can move around from host to host)
> and place them in the network XML (which remains with a single host);
> the domain XML will then use existing config elements to associate
> each guest interface with a "network".
> The motivating use case for this change is the "direct" connection
> type (which uses macvtap for vepa and vnlink connections directly
> between a guest and a physical interface, rather than through a
> bridge), but it is applicable for all types of connection. (Another
> hopeful side effect of this change will be to make libvirt's network
> connection model easier to realize on non-Linux hypervisors (eg,
> VMWare ESX) and for other network technologies, such as openvswitch,
> VDE, and various VPN implementations).
> Background
> ==========
> (parts lifted from Dan Berrange's last mail on this subject)
> Currently <network> supports 3 connectivity modes
> - Non-routed network, separate subnet (no <forward> element
> present)
> - Routed network, separate subnet with NAT (<forward mode='nat'/>)
> - Routed network, separate subnet (<forward mode='route'/>)
> Each of these is implemented in the existing network driver by
> creating a bridge device using brctl, and connecting the guest network
> interfaces via tap devices (a detail which, now that I've stated it,
> you should promptly forget!). All traffic between that bridge and the
> outside network is done via the host's IP routing stack (ie, there is
> no physical device directly connected to the bridge)
> In the future, these two additional routed modes might be useful:
> - Routed network, IP subnetting
> - Routed network, separate subnet with VPN
> The core goal of this proposal, though, is to replace type=bridge and
> type=direct from the domain interface XML with new types of <network>
> definitions so that the domain can just give "type='network'" and have
> all the necessary details filled in at runtime. This basically means
> we're adding several bridging modes (the submodes of "direct" have
> been flattened out here):
> - Bridged network, eth + bridge + tap
> - Bridged network, eth + macvtap + vepa
> - Bridged network, eth + macvtap + private
> - Bridged network, eth + macvtap + passthrough
> - Bridged network, eth + macvtap + bridge
> Another "future expansion" could be to add:
> - Bridged network, with VPN
> Likewise, support for other technologies, such as openvswitch and VDE
> would each be another entry on this list.
> (Dan also listed each of the above "+sriov" separately, but that ends
> up being handled in an orthogonal manner (by just specifying a pool of
> interfaces for a single network), so I'm only giving the abbreviated
> list)
> I. Changes to domain <interface> element
> ========================================
> In many cases, the <interface> element of the domain XML will be
> identical to what is used now when connecting the interface to a
> libvirt-style virtual network:
> <interface type='network'>
> <source network='red-network'/>
> <mac address='xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx'/>
> </interface>
> Depending on the definition of the network "red-network" on the host
> the guest was started on / migrated to, this could be either a direct
> (macvtap) connection using one of the various direct modes
> (vepa/private/bridge/passthrough), a bridge (again, pointed to by the
> definition of 'red-network'), or a virtual network (using the current
> network definition syntax). This way the same guest could be migrated
> not only between macvtap-enabled hosts, but from there to a host using
> a bridge, or maybe a host in a remote location that used a virtual
> network with a secure tunnel to connect back to the rest of the
> red-network.
> (Part of the migration process would of course check that the
> destination host had a network of the proper name with adequate
> available resources, and fail if it didn't; management software at a
> level above libvirt would probably filter a list of candidate
> migration destinations based on available networks and any various
> details of those networks (eg. it could search for only networks using
> vepa for the connection), and only attempt migration to one that had
> the matching network available).
> <virtualport> element of <interface>
> ------------------------------------
> Since many of the attributes/sub-elements of <virtualport> (used by
> some modes of "direct" interface connections) are identical for all
> interfaces connecting to any given switch, most of the information in
> <virtualport> will be optional in the domain's interface definition -
> it can be filled in from a similar <virtualport> element that will be
> added to the <network> definition.
> Some parameters in <virtualport> ("instanceid", for example) must be
> unique for every interface, though, so those will still be specified
> in the <interface> XML. The two <virtualport> elements will be OR'ed
> at runtime to arrive at the actual set of parameters that are
> used.
> (Open Question: What should be the policy when a parameter is
> specified in both places? Should one take precedence? Or should it be
> considered an error?)

I think it depends on the parameter.
instanceid, for example, is something that needs to be specified in the guest XML, so I would report an error in case it exists in the host.
As for other parameters, like, for example typeid, I think that you should take it from the guest xml, and validate that it equals to the typeid in the host xml.

I saw below that you specify the managerid, typeid and typeidversion both in the virtualport properties in the network, and in the port group.
I think that the network should have the managerid, and each port group should have the typeid+version.
But we should give the option not to have port groups, and put all devices under the network, and just specify the managerid.
You can say that it is the default typeid, but I think it is confusing, because it raises questions like: "Will my guest fail if I specify a different typeid?"

I think there are two cases:
1. There are port groups:
 a. The guest specified a port group.
 b. I believe this will be the common use-case in RHEV: The guest specified a typeid - we should check if there is a port group that supports it, and if so run the guest on one of its devices
 c. The guest specified both port group and typeid - we will fail in case the portgroup exists, but with another typeid.
2. There are no port groups:
 a. The guest specified a port group - failure
 b. I believe this will be the common use-case in RHEV: The guest specified a typeid - we will just run it on one of the devices in the specified network
 c. The guest specified both port group and typeid - failure

> portgroup attribute of <source>
> -------------------------------
> The <source> element of an interface definition will be able to
> optionally specify a "portgroup" attribute. If portgroup is *NOT*
> given, the default (first) portgroup of the network will be used (if
> any are defined). If portgroup *IS* specified, the source network must
> have a portgroup by that name (or the domain startup/migration will
> fail), and the attributes of that portgroup will be used for the
> connection. Here is an example <interface> definition that has both a
> reduced <virtualport> element, as well as a portgroup attribute:
> <interface type='network'>
> <source network='red-network' portgroup='engineering'/>
> <virtualport type="802.1Qbg">
> <parameters instanceid="09b11c53-8b5c-4eeb-8f00-d84eaa0aaa4f"/>
> </virtualport>
> <mac address='de:ad:be:ef:ca:fe'/>
> </interface>
> (The specifics of what can be in a portgroup are given below)
> II. Changes to <network> definition
> ===================================
> As Dan has pointed out, any additions to <network> must be designed so
> that existing management applications (written to understand <network>
> prior to these new additions) will at least recognize that the XML
> they've been given is for something new that they don't fully
> understand. At the same time, the new types of network definition
> should attempt to re-use as much of the existing elements/attributes
> as possible, both to make it easier to extend these applications, as
> well as to make the status displays of un-updated applications make as
> much sense as possible.
> Dan's suggestion (which I obviously endorse :-) is that the new types
> of network should be specified by extending the choices for <forward
> mode='....'>.
> He also suggested adding a new "layer='network|link'" attribute to
> <forward>. I'm not convinced that item is necessary (it seems
> redundant), but am including it here for sake of discussion.
> The current modes are:
> <forward layer='network' mode='route|nat'/>
> (in addition to not listing any mode, which equates to "isolated")
> Here are suggested new modes:
> <forward layer='link'
> mode='bridge-brctl|vepa|private|passthrough|bridge-macvtap'/>
> A description of each:
> bridge-brctl - equivalent to "<interface type='bridge'>" in the
> interface definition. The bridge device to use would be
> given in the existing <forward dev='xxx'>. (Dan also
> suggests putting this in <network>'s <bridge
> name='xxx'/> - opinions?)
> (Question: better name for this?)
> vepa - same as "<interface type='direct'>..." with <source
> mode='vepa'/>
> private - <interface type='direct'> ... <source mode='private'/>
> passthrough - <interface type='direct'> ... <source
> mode='passthrough'/>
> bridge-macvtap - <interface type='direct'> ... <source mode='bridge'/>
> (Question: better name for this?)
> Interface Pools
> ---------------
> In many cases, a single host network may have multiple physical
> network devices associated with it (especially in the case of an
> SRIOV-capable ethernet card, which will have several "virtual
> functions" associated with a single physical ethernet connection). The
> host will at least want to balance the load of multiple guests between
> these multiple devices, and may even require (in the case of
> passthrough mode, for example) that only a single guest interface be
> attached to each host device.
> The current specification for <forward> only allows for a single "dev"
> attribute, though. In order to support multiple device names, we will
> extend <forward> to allow 0 or more <interface> sub-elements:
> <forward mode='vepa' dev='eth10'/>
> <interface dev='eth10'/>
> <interface dev='eth11'/>
> <interface dev='eth12'/>
> <interface dev='eth13'/>
> </forward>
> Note that, as a convenience, the first of these elements will always
> be a duplicate of the "dev" attribute in <forward> itself. (Is this
> necessary/desirable?)
> In the case of mode='passthrough', only one guest interface can be
> connected to a device at a time. libvirt will keep track of which
> devices are in use, and attempt to assign a free device; failure to
> assign a device will result in a failure of the domain to
> start/migrate. For the other direct modes, libvirt will simply keep
> track of the number of guest interfaces currently using each device,
> and attempt to keep them balanced.
> (Open question: where will we keep track of this
> allocation/assignment?)
> Portgroups
> -----------
> A <portgroup> (sub-element of <network>) is just a way of easily
> putting connections to the network into different classes, with each
> class having a different level/type of service. Each <network> can
> have multiple <portgroup> elements, and each <portgroup> has a name,
> as well as various attributes associated with it. The first thing we
> will use portgroups for is as an alternate place to specify
> <virtualport> parameters:
> <portgroup name='engineering'>
> <virtualport type="802.1Qbg">
> <parameters managerid="11" typeid="1193047" typeidversion="2"/>
> </virtualport>
> </portgroup>
> Anything that is valid in an interface's <virtualport> is also valid
> here.
> The next thing to specify in a portgroup will be bandwidth limiting /
> QoS configuration. Since I don't know exactly what's needed for that,
> I won't specify it here.
> If anything is specified both directly under <network> and in a
> <portgroup>, the value in portgroup will take precedence. (Again -
> what will the precedence of items specified in the <interface> be?)
> --------
> Examples of 'red-network' for different types of connections (all of
> these would work with minor variations of the interface XML given
> above, e.g. the 'vepa' version would require <virtualport> in the
> interface that specified an instanceid, and if the <interface>
> specified a portgroup, it would need to also be in the <network>
> definition (even if it was empty aside from name).
> <!-- Existing usage - a libvirt virtual network -->
> <network>
> <name>red-network</name>
> <bridge name='virbr0'/>
> <forward layer='network' mode='route'/>
> ...
> </network>
> <!-- The simplest - an existing host bridge -->
> <network>
> <name>red-network</name>
> <forward mode='bridge-brctl' dev='br0'/>
> </network>
> <!-- A macvtap connection to a vepa bridge -->
> <network>
> <name>red-network</name>
> <forward layer='link' mode='vepa' dev='eth10'/>
> <virtualport type='802.1Qbg'>
> <parameters managerid='11' typeid='1193047' typeidversion='2'/>
> </virtualport>
> <!-- NB: if <interface> doesn't specify portgroup, -->
> <!-- 'accounting' is assumed -->
> <portgroup name='accounting'>
> <virtualport>
> <parameters typeid='22'/>
> </virtualport>
> </portgroup>
> <portgroup name='engineering'>
> <virtualport>
> <parameters typeid='33'/>
> </virtualport>
> </portgroup>
> </network>

> <!-- A macvtap passthrough connection (one guest interface per dev)
> -->
> <network>
> <name>red-network</name>
> <forward layer='link' mode='passthrough' dev='eth10'/>
> <interface dev='eth10'/>
> <interface dev='eth11'/>
> <interface dev='eth12'/>
> <interface dev='eth13'/>
> <interface dev='eth14'/>
> <interface dev='eth15'/>
> <interface dev='eth16'/>
> <interface dev='eth17'/>
> </forward>
> </network>
> =============
> Open Questions:
> * Is there a good reason to include the "layer='network|link'"
> attribute in forward? (maybe just because it's useful info for a
> management application that doesn't know the details of the modes?)
> Or is it redundant?
> * What should be the policy when a virtualport parameter is specified
> in both the <interface> and the <network>/<portgroup>? Should one take
> precedence? Or should it be considered an error?
See answer above.

> * Is it okay for the domain's own definition to specify what portgroup
> it will be in? Or are there cases where we want to allow someone to
> modify their domain XML, but force them into a particular portgroup
> beyond their control?
I think that if you give the ability to define port groups then It'll be nice to give the guest a control on that.
But I think that RHEV guests will use the typeid or profile name, and not specify the port group.

> * Is it really necessary/desirable for the first ethernet device in a
> pool to be duplicated in the <forward dev='xxx'...> attribute? Or
> can that attribute be omitted when there is a pool of devices?
> * Where will we keep track of the count of guest interfaces connected
> to each host interface device, and where will we keep track of which
> device is being used by a particular guest interface? In the
> network/domain XML?
I think you should keep it in the host network XML.

> * Does anyone have better names for "brctl-bridge" and
> "macvtap-bridge"?
> --
> libvir-list mailing list
> libvir-list redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list

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