----- Original Message ----- > From: "Muli Salem" <[email protected]> > To: "Mike Kolesnik" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 6:09:30 PM > Subject: Re: Direct Host Address > > > > "Current behaviour assumes the network interface with the specified > > address is configured properly in the engine although this may not > > be the case initially" > > > > I don't understand what does this mean, which interface are you > > referring to and what does it have to do with being configured in > > the engine? > > The next line is also unclear to me: > > "The direct address allows the engine to connect to the host, > > without > > knowing the exact configuration of the network interface that has > > the address. " > > > > Regarding the last two sentences you quoted: > > I am referring to the interface that has the IP that the user gives > us (with regards to current behavior). > At the moment, we assume that the given IP is for an interface that > can communicate with the engine (when in practice, this may not be > the case). > So separating the two addresses, allows us to ask the admin for an > alternate IP address that will allow communication without needing > to know the specific configuration (for example, whether this is a > VLAN network or not). > > Perhaps the wording should be changed a bit to clarify.
I still don't get it... can you please provide real world use case? When can we access the alternate address and not the management address? Thanks, Alon _______________________________________________ Arch mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
