[Engine-devel] Report vNic Implementation Details

[Itamar Heim]

On 11/22/2012 08:40 PM, Simon Grinberg wrote:
> Back to the original question:
>
> What is most inconvenient for many users is:
> 1. The name we provide while creating the VNIC differs from the one in the guest
> 2. No correlation between IP and NIC
>
> The current page covers for this but indeed as raised here does not cover what happens if this information is not easy to retrieve due to non strait forward configurations.
>
> What I suggest is,
>
> For the short term:
> - Agent to report the MACs, IPs and interface names if can be found, engine to match these to the existing and show
> Name In Engine| Name in guest | MAC | IP  etc like the current feature page, but...
>
> - If a match could not be found then just report Name in Engine N/A and then the rest and keep it in dynamic only table.
> This is useful for NICs created by hooks, advanced topology that we can't support ATM etc.
>
> *The above does require the agent to at least match MAC to IP.
>
>
> Long term: The agent to report a topology the same as vdsm does (use same code at least for Linux guests?) and present it similar to what we present in the host tab. In most cases this will collapse to the short term.
>
> MTU, is good to have in any of the two if we can get it.
>
> More?

I don't think the guest agent ip information should be correlated to the 
vnic engine information at rest api level.
the vm (and vnic) api provides the authoritative configuration 
information of the guest as defined in the engine.
I don't think we should 'taint' it with untrusted data from the guest.
it would make sense to place there IPs configured/allocated by engine 
when we deal with ip allocation though.

i.e., the guest info element in the rest api provides good separation 
between engine level data, and guest agent data.