On 21.05.12 15:38, Michael Pasternak wrote:
Hi Livnat,
On 05/21/2012 02:55 PM, Livnat Peer wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> After digging into the port mirroring feature I suggest a different
> modeling of it in the API.
>
> The current modeling is to add to vnic a boolean property of
> port-mirroring, e.g.
>
> api/vms/{vm-id}/nics
>
> <nics>
> <nic>
> ...
> <network href="/api/networks/{network-id}"
id="{network-id}"/>
> <port-mirroring> true </port mirroring>
> </nic>
> </VM>
>
> This modeling imply 2 limitations:
> 1. The vnic must be connected to the network it wants to monitor
> 2. the nic can mirror only a single network
>
> Both of the above limitations are correct to the current implementation.
> Going forward we might want to introduce the above functionalities and
> the above modeling won't hold.
> Instead of the above I suggest to change the port-mirroring property to
> a list of networks.
>
> <nics>
> <nic>
> ...
> <network href="/api/networks/{network-id}"
id="{network-id}"/>
> <port-mirroring>
> <network href="/api/networks/{network-id}"
id="{network-id}"/>
> ....
> </port mirroring>
> </nic>
> </VM>
>
> In this version we'll validate that the network under port-mirroring is
> equal to the network the vnic is connected to, in future versions we can
> remove this validation without changing the API.
iiuc you saying that in future vnic might be connected to several
networks simultaneously?
yes, maybe in next version
>
>
>
> Thanks, Livnat
--
Michael Pasternak
RedHat, ENG-Virtualization R&D