On 03/18/2012 11:27 AM, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
On 03/18/2012 10:43 AM, Michael Pasternak wrote:
On 03/18/2012 10:21 AM, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 03/18/2012 09:33 AM, Michael Pasternak wrote:
the question is Management/Migration/Storage/Display can be
non-bridged?, if so,
<bridged>true|false</bridged> makes sense.
bridge is an implementation detail at host level, hence the
discussion is about abstracting it from users.
a VM network doesn't have to have bridge at host level, for networks
using VMFex or SR-IOV
<network>
<designation>Management|Migration|Storage|Display|VM</designation>
</network>
what do you say about having it as another /designation/ type?
Not sure I understand: Management can be bridge-less, Migration can be
bridge-less, Storage can be bridge-less, Display can be bridge-less, VM
is the only that perhaps today cannot be bridge-less, so I do think that
'<bridged>true|false</bridged>' makes some sense. However, I'd
generalize it to 'attachment' as I believe we'll have other types in the
future (Macvtap, SRIOV and friends), so something like
<attachment>bridge|sriov|macvtap|...</attachment>
Y.
attachment would be at physical host level and could vary from host to host.
this is about intended allowed usages of the logical network across the
system
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
Engine-devel@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
