On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 19:38 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 07:17:04PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 18:52 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 04:44:17PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> >
> > > > Rather you suggest that if people want to use bridging, then
> > > > they
> > > > should modify the default network XML config by hand and not have the
> > > > latter option in the UI?
> > >
> > > How they configure the network XML is a completely separate issue - we
> > > could
> > > easily have UI in virt-manager for creating/deleteing/editing networks in
> > > the same way we have UI for creating/deleting/editing domains.
> >
> > ... except you'd again have need an API for iterating physical network
> > devices ...
>
> You say that like its a bad thing ?
Not at all, I'm just saying that making the physical interface bridging
configuration a part of the virtual network description does not make
the problem of listing physical interfaces go away.
> > e.g. connect your qemu guests to the default network, connect your Xen
> > guests to the eth0 bridge.
>
> I'm just wondering whether this is making a distinction, where no real
> distinction exists? If you run 'ifconfig' or 'brctl show' in either
> of these two cases its going to look basically identical to the admin.
> ie, there a bridge device, with one of more NICs in it, some virtual
> NICs or TAPs, some physical NICs. If you run 'virsh net-list' you're
> only going to see one of those cases
I think there's a big distinction between the concepts which we want
users to understand, but not such a big distinction in how they are
implemented.
Cheers,
Mark.
--
Libvir-list mailing list
Libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
