On 03/15/2012 03:58 PM, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 03/15/2012 12:53 PM, Michael Pasternak wrote:
Hi,
First of all i would like to understand the exact meaning of the vm_network, from the wiki [1] - "a "Vm network" is implemented over a bridge, otherwise bridgeless",
if so, why not calling network property<bridged>true|false</bridged>?
bridge vs. bridgeless is an implementation detail. some network models could run without a bridge as well for VMs (though not currently supported). so the optimization is to not use a bridge for networks that can't run VMs, but the reverse logic does not apply.
from the other hand i understand that this is only current implementation and it may change in a future,
anyway adding<vm_network>true|false</vm_network> property to<network> entity in api (as was suggested) doesn't sound good cause vm_network sounds as a network type, but then the question is Management/Migration/Storage/Display should be also network's types? and if single network can be used for the Management|Migration|Storage|Display simultaneously? if the answer is yes, network modelling probably should look like:
<network> <bridged>true|false</bridged> <type>Management/Migration/Storage/Display</type> </network>
or
<network> <bridged>true|false</bridged> <designation>Management|Migration|Storage|Display</designation> </network>
that bridged should be replaced with something saying VM_Network (better name needed).
the question is Management/Migration/Storage/Display can be non-bridged?, if so, <bridged>true|false</bridged> makes sense.
btw, I wonder if a private network (only for one vm) is also a type, or just a private case of a vm network.
<private>true</private> by itself doesn't provide much info and to complete the picture will require <network> <private>true</private> <designation>VM</designation> <vm id=xxx> </network> having only <designation>VM</designation> also not enough cause it may sound that this network will be used only for vms and not a single vm.
and that type/designation can have more than one of course. (and that migration/storage networks are still not supported).
i know, looking forward to take in account all future features.
your thoughts?
[1] http://www.ovirt.org/wiki/Features/Design/Network/Bridgeless_Networks
-- Michael Pasternak RedHat, ENG-Virtualization R&D