Re: [Engine-devel] Bridgeless Networks api design
On 03/18/2012 10:43 AM, Michael Pasternak wrote:
On 03/18/2012 10:21 AM, Itamar Heim wrote:
> On 03/18/2012 09:33 AM, Michael Pasternak wrote:
>> the question is Management/Migration/Storage/Display can be non-bridged?, if so,
>> <bridged>true|false</bridged> makes sense.
> bridge is an implementation detail at host level, hence the discussion is about
abstracting it from users.
> a VM network doesn't have to have bridge at host level, for networks using VMFex
or SR-IOV
<network>
<designation>Management|Migration|Storage|Display|VM</designation>
</network>
what do you say about having it as another /designation/ type?
Not sure I understand: Management can be bridge-less, Migration can be
bridge-less, Storage can be bridge-less, Display can be bridge-less, VM
is the only that perhaps today cannot be bridge-less, so I do think that
'<bridged>true|false</bridged>' makes some sense. However, I'd
generalize it to 'attachment' as I believe we'll have other types in the
future (Macvtap, SRIOV and friends), so something like
<attachment>bridge|sriov|macvtap|...</attachment>
Y.