On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 10:50 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
libvirt does not require that all functionality is present on
all platforms. So as long as an error is raised if the user
requests an unsupported configuration, we're fine. As for the
XML question, libvirt requires 100% backwards
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 05:14:44PM + David Lutterkort wrote:
[..]
There's a few more options we need to add for completeness, at least
PERSISTENT_DHCLIENT, DHCPRELEASE, and DHCLIENT_IGNORE_GATEWAY are
supported by initscripts.
This raises a question - how should the features of some
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:58:49AM +0200, Jonas Eriksson wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 05:14:44PM + David Lutterkort wrote:
[..]
There's a few more options we need to add for completeness, at least
PERSISTENT_DHCLIENT, DHCPRELEASE, and DHCLIENT_IGNORE_GATEWAY are
supported by
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:02:03PM + David Lutterkort wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 09:15 +0200, Jonas Eriksson wrote:
I am a bit critical to the policy restrictions of the current
incarnation of the netcf API. Currently, a interface (or
connection) has to have an IP address and a bridge
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:56:44PM +, David Lutterkort wrote:
The one argument for address tags is that it makes it cleaner to
bundle addressing info like ip and routing info, to make sure that the
user doesn't specify ipv6 routes for an interface without ipv6
addresses.
Yes that
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:56:44PM +, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 18:10 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
I don't see that that buys us anything that we wouldn't have with
ip type='ipv4' address='122.0.0.3' prefix='24'/
ip type='ipv4'
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:50:10PM +, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 20:48 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 07:05:29PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
I think this is a really unpleasant format to deal with. IMHO there should
not be nesting
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 06:13:37PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:50:10PM +, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 20:48 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 07:05:29PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
I think this is a
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 05:53:59PM +, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 18:06 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
VLANs are tricky, because you can define VLANs on a physical
inteface or a bond interface, and you then may want to also
add a bridge on top of a VLAN, eg take 2
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 05:39:57PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 05:53:59PM +, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 18:06 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
VLANs are tricky, because you can define VLANs on a physical
inteface or a bond interface,
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 07:05:23PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 05:39:57PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 05:53:59PM +, David Lutterkort wrote:
So the possible configs would appear as XML like
1. Physical NIC
interface
On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 17:39 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
Here is a proposal that is a compromise between the single hierarchy, and
completely flat. The break point is only introduced where VLANs appear,
which is acceptable because when defining VLAns, you don't need to define
the
On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 17:17 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 06:13:37PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:50:10PM +, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 20:48 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 07:05:29PM
On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 10:47 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
IMHO that results in a bad structure, because its anot associating
the related info together, eg having an separate element to turn
on/off IPV6, and then listing addresses:
address family='ipv6'/
ip type='ipv6'
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 05:45:33PM +, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 17:17 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 06:13:37PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:50:10PM +, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 20:48
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 05:39:57PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 05:53:59PM +, David Lutterkort wrote:
5. Physical NIC + 2 * vlan
interface type=ethernet
nameeth0/name
/interface
interface type=vlan
namevlan42/name
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 06:16:20PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 07:05:23PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
Of course, you could actually have a hybrid of 7/8, where some vlans
where bridged, and others direct endpoints. That's trivally handled
there of course.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 08:19:24PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 05:39:57PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 05:53:59PM +, David Lutterkort wrote:
5. Physical NIC + 2 * vlan
interface type=ethernet
nameeth0/name
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 05:44:25PM +, David Lutterkort wrote:
There are 4 possible arrangements of physical NIC, bond and vlan,
each of which can use a bridge. This gives 8 total configs
1. Physical NIC
2. Physical NIC + bridge
3. Physical NIC + bond
4. Physical NIC
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 05:47:44PM +, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 10:47 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
IMHO that results in a bad structure, because its anot associating
the related info together, eg having an separate element to turn
on/off IPV6, and then listing
On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 20:14 +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 05:45:33PM +, David Lutterkort wrote:
Agreed .. that format wouldn't help much with static checking.
Okay, well I think the recursive definition is really the worse
for validation and processing.
I
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 01:27:14PM -0700 David Lutterkort wrote:
or forever hold your peace.
While talking about the relax-ng schema, I would like to
again raise my question earlier raised at the netcf-devel-list
in order to get some input from the libvirt developers on this
matter as well.
I
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:59:20PM +, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 21:32 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
How do you deal with IPv6 currently ?
With lots of Aspirin (actually, not at all)
I was thinking of sugesting an attribute
ip type=ipv6
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 09:15:54AM +0200, Jonas Eriksson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 01:27:14PM -0700 David Lutterkort wrote:
or forever hold your peace.
While talking about the relax-ng schema, I would like to
again raise my question earlier raised at the netcf-devel-list
in order to
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:46:45AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:59:20PM +, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 21:32 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
How do you deal with IPv6 currently ?
With lots of Aspirin (actually, not at all)
Very
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 10:46 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:59:20PM +, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 21:32 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
How do you deal with IPv6 currently ?
With lots of Aspirin (actually, not at all)
I was
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 04:06:40PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:46:45AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
I was thinking of sugesting an attribute
ip type=ipv6 address=2001:23::2 prefix=24/
but I think its possibly better to have a different
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 09:42:40AM -0700, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 10:46 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:59:20PM +, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 21:32 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
How do you deal with IPv6
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 16:06 +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:46:45AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:59:20PM +, David Lutterkort wrote:
The problem with the propsal is that it opens the door to a variety of
errors like using the same
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 06:06:27PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 04:06:40PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
define name=interface-addr-ipv6
element name=addresses
attribute name=family
valueipv6/value
/attribute
choice
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 18:06 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 04:06:40PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
We should allow standalone IPv4 and IPv6, or both. Each could either
use DHCP or allow one or more IP address and routes.
You need to have allow for IP
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 05:53:59PM +, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 18:06 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 04:06:40PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
We should allow standalone IPv4 and IPv6, or both. Each could either
use DHCP or allow one
On 06/18/2009 01:53 PM, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 18:06 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 04:06:40PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
We should allow standalone IPv4 and IPv6, or both. Each could either
use DHCP or allow one or more IP
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 02:22:16PM -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
On 06/18/2009 01:53 PM, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 18:06 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 04:06:40PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
We should allow standalone IPv4 and IPv6, or
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 07:05:29PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 05:53:59PM +, David Lutterkort wrote:
For that, you'd nest them where they are used, e.g. one connection to
establish the base ethernet interface (that might not exist at all):
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 19:05 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
Similarly, a bond enslaved to a bridge, together with a vlan on that
bond also enslaved to the bridge would look like
interface type=bridge startmode=onboot
namebr0/name
...
bridge
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 20:48 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 07:05:29PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
I think this is a really unpleasant format to deal with. IMHO there should
not be nesting for bridge/bond tags. They should just refer to their
slave device
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 18:10 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
I don't see that that buys us anything that we wouldn't have with
ip type='ipv4' address='122.0.0.3' prefix='24'/
ip type='ipv4' address='24.24.224.4' prefix='24'/
ip type='ipv6' address='2001:23::2'
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 09:15 +0200, Jonas Eriksson wrote:
I am a bit critical to the policy restrictions of the current
incarnation of the netcf API. Currently, a interface (or
connection) has to have an IP address and a bridge has to have
one or more interfaces attached to it.
Ok .. I relent
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 03:12:36PM -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
I've already been working on incorporating physical host interface
configuration into libvirt by way of using libnetcf on the backend. It's
becoming apparent that, in addition to modifying and reporting the
current configuration
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 19:24 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
IP address information should be in the XML, and indeed surely it is
already there in order to allow non-DHCP based IP address config
on interfaces ?
Yes, for statically configured interfaces, the IP information is in the
XML -
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 22:10 +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 09:03:32PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 09:42:11PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:22:13PM -0700, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 19:24
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 01:27:14PM -0700, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 22:10 +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 09:03:32PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 09:42:11PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:33:02PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 01:27:14PM -0700, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 22:10 +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 09:03:32PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 21:32 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
How do you deal with IPv6 currently ?
With lots of Aspirin (actually, not at all)
I was thinking of sugesting an attribute
ip type=ipv6 address=2001:23::2 prefix=24/
but I think its possibly better to have a different
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 22:33 +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 01:27:14PM -0700, David Lutterkort wrote:
I haven't declared the schema or the API stable yet, but I want to do
that once there is a libvirt release out there that relies on netcf. So
if there are any other
I've already been working on incorporating physical host interface
configuration into libvirt by way of using libnetcf on the backend. It's
becoming apparent that, in addition to modifying and reporting the
current configuration of interfaces, libvirt users also want to query
current status of
47 matches
Mail list logo
