On Jan 31, 2012, at 6:01 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 02:49:03PM -0600, kmestery wrote: >> On Jan 30, 2012, at 2:41 PM, Dan Wendlandt wrote: >>> Hi Kyle! Funny how we keep bumping into each other... I hope you're >>> keeping warm in Minnesota :) >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 11:22 AM, kmestery <kmest...@cisco.com> wrote: >>>> Hi Dan: >>>> >>>> We at Cisco have been looking at this as well, and in fact were going to >>>> propose some things in this area as well. Our proposal (which frankly just >>>> builds on top of what you have): >>> >>> I agree, I think the two proposals are complementary. Our first goal >>> was to enable the basic mode of plugging an interface into an OVS >>> bridge that was created outside of libvirt. This would require >>> changes to the <interface> XML only, and would mirror how libvirt >>> already let's one plug into an existing bridge using <interface >>> type="bridge">. >>> >> This makes sense. >> >>> The second step would be to also allow libvirt to actually create + >>> configure the OVS bridges as well. This I believe would map very >>> closely to the XML you and Roopa have suggested. We would need to put >>> some thought into what of the many configuration options on an OVS >>> bridge need to be exposed as part of the OVS <network> XML (e.g., how >>> to configure an OpenFlow controller, etc.). These are definitely >>> discussions worth having, but I was hoping to start out with a fairly >>> clean initial patch to achieve our first goal. >>> >> OK, this makes sense too. >> >>> I do like the idea of using the virtual port construct even in the >>> initial <interface> only case. For example: >>> >>> <interface type='bridge'> >>> <bridge name='br0'> >>> <virtualport type="openvswitch"> >>> <parameters interfaceid='xyzzy'/> >>> </virtualport> >>> </interface> >>> >>> This would seem to create a nice parallel with the model you proposed >>> where <virtualport> is used with <interface type="network">. I'm >>> still not sure whether the "type=openvswitch" should be an attribute >>> of the <interface>, <bridge>, or <virtualport> element. Either way, I >>> think the underlying code will be treating OVS + Linux Bridge as two >>> different cases, so I believe this is really just a matter of >>> consistently of presentation in XML. > > Yes, I prefer this design to the initial proposal. > >>> >> I think fundamentally an Open vSwitch bridge is different from a >> standard Linux, thus the "type=openvswitch" needs to be a part of >> the <bridge> for sure. I like adding it to the <virtualport> element >> above. > > NB, type='bridge' technically refers to the *concept* of bridging > an interface to a LAN, not the implemntation of Linux software > bridging. Thus it shouldn't change for OpenVSwitch which is also > providing bridging to the LAN here. > > Regards, > Daniel
Dan and I working together to modify the patches in this direction. We'll send them out for review once we have them formatted and tested. Thanks, Kyle -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
