Re: [Users] networking: basic vlan help
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010004070404070407050707 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Itamar, I don't know if I get your post right, but to me, it seems that if so many users hit the same rock, it should mean that this should be documented somewhere visible and in my opinion, push on getting bug 1049476 <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049476> solved asap. Regards, --------------010004070404070407050707 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> Hi Itamar,<br> <br> I don't know if I get your post right, but to me, it seems that if so many users hit the same rock, it should mean that this should be documented somewhere visible and in my opinion, push on getting bug <a name="b1049476" href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049476">1049476</a> solved asap.<br> Regards,<br> </body> </html> --------------010004070404070407050707--
On 01/23/2014 08:34 PM, Juan Pablo Lorier wrote:
Hi Itamar,
I don't know if I get your post right, but to me, it seems that if so many users hit the same rock, it should mean that this should be documented somewhere visible and in my opinion, push on getting bug 1049476 <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049476> solved asap. Regards,
1. yes, too many issues on this one, hinting we should provide better text explaining this in the UI. 2. the bug you referenced[1] Bug 1049476 - [RFE] Mix untagged and tagged Logical Networks on the same NIC is actually supported, as long as the untagged logical network is not a VM network (so VMs associated with it would not be able to see/create other logical networks traffic). 3. considering how prevalent this is, maybe we should allow doing this, even for VM networks, with a big red warning, rather than block it, which seems to be failing everyone. cc-ing some more folks for their thoughts. [1] in the future, please use number-name formatso not everyone would have to open it to understand
----- Original Message -----
On 01/23/2014 08:34 PM, Juan Pablo Lorier wrote:
Hi Itamar,
I don't know if I get your post right, but to me, it seems that if so many users hit the same rock, it should mean that this should be documented somewhere visible and in my opinion, push on getting bug 1049476 <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049476> solved asap. Regards,
1. yes, too many issues on this one, hinting we should provide better text explaining this in the UI.
2. the bug you referenced[1] Bug 1049476 - [RFE] Mix untagged and tagged Logical Networks on the same NIC
is actually supported, as long as the untagged logical network is not a VM network (so VMs associated with it would not be able to see/create other logical networks traffic).
3. considering how prevalent this is, maybe we should allow doing this, even for VM networks, with a big red warning, rather than block it, which seems to be failing everyone.
Besides that it's technically not possible in the way we currently use the Linux Bridge [1], I'm not sure what's to gain from representing a single "flat" network with multiple representations. Seems to me like there may be a couple different points here: * ovirtmgmt is VM network by default - should be configurable on setup and/or DC creation. If it's such a prevalent issue, we should consider a default of non VM network (users can create a flat network and use it quite easily anyway, if they want). * if people want to represent different L3 networks on the same L2 network, it is worthwhile to design a proper solution Either way, I wouldn't push for allowing multiple bridged networks on the same physical interface (or bond). [1] and also not allowed in OpenStack Neutron IIUC.
cc-ing some more folks for their thoughts.
[1] in the future, please use number-name formatso not everyone would have to open it to understand
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Hi Mike, I'd like to say that though setting ovirtmgmt as non vm as a default should be nice, it won't be enough as it won't allow to use mixed traffic in other interfaces either, so the way I see it, the fix should be to add this ability to ovirt. I can't make my mind to think what a big corporation may need in security restrictions, but as a small company, I'm willing to take the risk of a hardly probable security breach in favor of been able to use untagged and tagged vlans on the same nic. Regards, On 26/01/14 11:40, Mike Kolesnik wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> On 01/23/2014 08:34 PM, Juan Pablo Lorier wrote: >>> Hi Itamar, >>> >>> I don't know if I get your post right, but to me, it seems that if so >>> many users hit the same rock, it should mean that this should be >>> documented somewhere visible and in my opinion, push on getting bug >>> 1049476 <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049476> solved asap. >>> Regards, >> 1. yes, too many issues on this one, hinting we should provide better >> text explaining this in the UI. >> >> 2. the bug you referenced[1] >> Bug 1049476 - [RFE] Mix untagged and tagged Logical Networks on the same NIC >> >> is actually supported, as long as the untagged logical network is not a >> VM network (so VMs associated with it would not be able to see/create >> other logical networks traffic). >> >> 3. considering how prevalent this is, maybe we should allow doing this, >> even for VM networks, with a big red warning, rather than block it, >> which seems to be failing everyone. > Besides that it's technically not possible in the way we currently use the Linux Bridge [1], > I'm not sure what's to gain from representing a single "flat" network with multiple representations. > > Seems to me like there may be a couple different points here: > * ovirtmgmt is VM network by default - should be configurable on setup and/or DC creation. > If it's such a prevalent issue, we should consider a default of non VM network (users can create a flat network and use it quite easily anyway, if they want). > * if people want to represent different L3 networks on the same L2 network, it is worthwhile to design a proper solution > > Either way, I wouldn't push for allowing multiple bridged networks on the same physical interface (or bond). > > [1] and also not allowed in OpenStack Neutron IIUC. > >> cc-ing some more folks for their thoughts. >> >> >> [1] in the future, please use number-name formatso not everyone would >> have to open it to understand >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Users mailing list >> Users@ovirt.org >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>
On 26/01/14 15:40, Mike Kolesnik wrote:
----- Original Message -----
On 01/23/2014 08:34 PM, Juan Pablo Lorier wrote:
Hi Itamar,
I don't know if I get your post right, but to me, it seems that if so many users hit the same rock, it should mean that this should be documented somewhere visible and in my opinion, push on getting bug 1049476 <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049476> solved asap. Regards,
1. yes, too many issues on this one, hinting we should provide better text explaining this in the UI.
2. the bug you referenced[1] Bug 1049476 - [RFE] Mix untagged and tagged Logical Networks on the same NIC
is actually supported, as long as the untagged logical network is not a VM network (so VMs associated with it would not be able to see/create other logical networks traffic).
3. considering how prevalent this is, maybe we should allow doing this, even for VM networks, with a big red warning, rather than block it, which seems to be failing everyone.
Besides that it's technically not possible in the way we currently use the Linux Bridge [1], I'm not sure what's to gain from representing a single "flat" network with multiple representations.
Seems to me like there may be a couple different points here: * ovirtmgmt is VM network by default - should be configurable on setup and/or DC creation. If it's such a prevalent issue, we should consider a default of non VM network (users can create a flat network and use it quite easily anyway, if they want).
From a UX point of view I don't think this would be desireable. I think it's convenient for a new user to be able to use just the one default network for everything (including connection to VMs).
* if people want to represent different L3 networks on the same L2 network, it is worthwhile to design a proper solution
Either way, I wouldn't push for allowing multiple bridged networks on the same physical interface (or bond).
[1] and also not allowed in OpenStack Neutron IIUC.
cc-ing some more folks for their thoughts.
[1] in the future, please use number-name formatso not everyone would have to open it to understand
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
participants (4)
-
Itamar Heim -
Juan Pablo Lorier -
Lior Vernia -
Mike Kolesnik