[Users] networking: basic vlan help

[Lior Vernia]

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 at ovirt.org
>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>