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 _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
