Re: [Engine-devel] Bridgeless Networks api design

From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Yaniv Kaul" <ykaul(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 2:31:45 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Bridgeless Networks api design On 03/18/2012 11:27 AM, Yaniv Kaul wrote: > 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. > attachment would be at physical host level and could vary from host to host. this is about intended allowed usages of the logical network across the system

_______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel