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.