[Engine-devel] Bridgeless Networks api design

[Itamar Heim]

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