On 06/08/2011 11:34 PM, Carlos N. A. Corrêa wrote:
As I said, I gone through the list archives and got some insight on
how to present my ideas.
I tried to use the thread started by Laine Stump
(https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-April/msg00591.html)
as a model.
I just posted an update to that which changes things a bit based on
suggestions from Dan Berrange:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-May/msg01503.html
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-June/msg00383.html
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-June/msg00471.html
The main difference is that, rather than using <network type="..."> to
specify what kind of network is being configured, it now uses <forward
mode='...'/>, but it also incorporates the idea of portgroups, which you
may find useful. You may want to revisit your proposal after reading
those messages (and the critiques that will hopefully be made of the
latest proposal).
Please, forgive me if my RFC is too verbose: I tried to produce
something good.
More details are almost always good :-)
In time: I'm willing to implement this idea as part of my postgraduate
work.
Unless you're planning to do it in less than 2-3 weeks, there should be
a good basis committed by the time you start.
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
