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 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
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 i
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 back
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.
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 list
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
> >
>
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
> >
> >
> > eth0
> >
> >
> >
>
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
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
>
>
> eth0
>
>
>
> vlan42
>
>
> eth0
>
>
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
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:
>
>
>
>
>
> vs having the direct association
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
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 underl
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
> >
> >
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
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
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 th
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
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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > If you
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:56:44PM +, David Lutterkort wrote:
> The one argument for tags is that it makes it cleaner to
> bundle addressing info like and routing info, to make sure that the
> user doesn't specify ipv6 routes for an interface without ipv6
> addresses.
Yes that grouping is
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 rele
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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> If you do this, then you'll need an explicit element to turn on / off
> IPv4 or IPv6 addressi
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 / tags. They should just refer to their
> > slave device by
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
> >
> >
> > br0
> > ...
> >
> >
> > bond0
>
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, 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
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 address
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 a
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 a
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:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ipv6
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > same for IPv6
>
> Not quite - IP
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
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, 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > but I think its possibly better to have a different element name
> > > >
>
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)
> >
>
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)
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 orde
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
> >
> >
> >
> > but I thi
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 a
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 ot
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
>
>
>
> but I think its possibly better to have a different element name
>
>
>
> since the former
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 a
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 a
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 a
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
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 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > > IP address informat
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 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > IP address information should be in the XML, and indeed surely it is
> > > already there in or
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:22:13PM -0700, David Lutterkort wrote:
> 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 ?
>
> Y
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:22:13PM -0700, David Lutterkort wrote:
> 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 ?
>
> Y
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 - t
50 matches
Mail list logo
