----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <dan...@redhat.com> > To: "Mark Wu" <wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Cc: a...@ovirt.org, vdsm-de...@fedorahosted.org > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:49:19 PM > Subject: Re: [vdsm] vdsm networking changes proposal > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 05:55:45PM +0800, Mark Wu wrote: > > On Thu 21 Feb 2013 04:46:16 PM CST, Mark Wu wrote: > > >On 02/18/2013 05:23 PM, David Jaša wrote: > > > > Sorry for coming to it so late. > > Happy new year! > > > I get the following comments and questions about the proposal. > > > > I suggest to add a field of top interface to the network, and only > > apply IpConfig and mtu to it. > > I'm not sure how such an added field would help. Isn't the info > already > available within the stucture of interface objects? Or do you suggest > a > read-only field? I'd appreciate more details. > > > > > For the openvswitch configurator, it needs assistance of iproute2 > > because it can't configure ip/netmask/gw and mtu. > > Thanks, added to wiki. > > > > > I can't figure out the point to allow different configurators > > except > > openvswitch coexist. It could cause unnecessary complexity. > > I agree that we should decide on a very limited set of valid > configurator combinations. > > > > > In the proposal, the rollback mechanism can be used to persist > > configuration for iproute2. Why do we still need NetworkManager? > > We may need NetworkManager. It is present and running by default on > our > target platforms -- inlcuding my laptop -- and it can be a bit rude > to > other services that try to configure network devices not through it.
Maybe the reason to have NetworkManager provider is for pure debug/development purposes, so you can run it on your laptop. I think that as go forward we [might] see that the considerations for hypervisors out-ways these of the desktop distribution. > > > > > I think the solution of "iproute2 + openvswitch + serializing > > configuration objects" can meet all our requirements. I remember > > that Dan had a concern of > > adding a new standard about it in previous discussion. Have we > > already get agreement on it? > > Well, I'd say that I've caved in. I see no other way forward without > introducing our own form of persisting network definitions. At least > we > keep our current setupNetworks API for that. > > Dan. > _______________________________________________ > vdsm-devel mailing list > vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org > https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel > _______________________________________________ vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel