[Engine-devel] Report vNic Implementation Details

[Livnat Peer]

On 22/11/12 23:18, Itamar Heim wrote:
> 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 was too quick to say we have an agreement...

The comment above seems to give more emphasis on the segregation between
data collected via the GA and data configured via the engine.

In the API we have today the following modeling: per VM entity we hold
GuestInfo entity and there we hold a list of IP addresses.

Are you suggesting to keep this approach and not report anything on the
vNIC level at this point (until we'll be able to configure IP addresses
via the engine)?
Or add GuestInfo element under /api/vms/{vm:id}/nics/{nic:id}/ which
should be additional to the one on the VM level (as we discussed before
the correlation between VNIC and GA reported data is not always possible)

Also what you have in mind for the UI?




> i.e., the guest info element in the rest api provides good separation
> between engine level data, and guest agent data.
> _______________________________________________
> Engine-devel mailing list
> Engine-devel at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel