On 1/28/2013 17:52, Michael Mol wrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Randy Barlow
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 01/20/2013 12:37 AM, William Kenworthy wrote:
So what is usually recommended and works for this scenario?
I personally use a bridged interface that allows my VMs to be on the
"physical" network. That works out pretty well. In my use case, it's
the same subnet as the host, but it should be possible to use VLANs to
accomplish having them on a separate subnet.
I've got a Gentoo-based libvirt/qemu-kvm host running with several VMs,
also using bridged TAP adapters. It works really well for servers/other
"always on" systems that run in the background. virt-manager can handle
everything for you, you just have to know the name of the bridge to
which you want to the VM to join.
There's no requirement that they be on separate layer 2 segments if
you want them to be on separate layer 3 subnets.
Either statically configure the IPs, or:
For IPv4: Have DHCP grant IPs from different pools based on source MAC
or declared hostname.
For IPv6: Use DHCPv6 rather than SLAAC, and follow the same principles
as for DHCP-for-IPv4.
Sure, giving them separate layer 2 segments helps encapsulation (and
may make things easier from an autoconfiguration standpoint,
depending), but it's not strictly necessary from a technology point of
view.
While that's all true, I personally think 802.1Q VLANs are *much* easier
to configure than DHCP and especially DHCPv6. Definitely sysadmin's
prerogative, though.
--
:wq
:x
--
♫Dustin
