[Engine-devel] Bridgeless Networks api design

[Michael Pasternak]

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