Quoting Tycho Andersen ([email protected]): > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 03:09:22PM +0000, Serge Hallyn wrote: > > Quoting Tycho Andersen ([email protected]): > > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 02:54:14PM +0000, Serge Hallyn wrote: > > > > Quoting Tycho Andersen ([email protected]): > > > > > This was originally used to propagate the bridge and veth names across > > > > > hosts, but now we extract both from the container's config file, and > > > > > > > > Is that the right thing to do? > > > > > > I don't know, actually. I did it so that you could switch bridges > > > across hosts (and because the code is considerably simpler); it does > > > keep the MAC and all that the same, so in theory it should Just Work. > > > Someone who knows more about networks can probably correct me if I'm > > > wrong, though :) > > > > I do prefer simple, in general. > > > > My concern with this is that any change to the running container which > > was not reflected in the config will not be retained. I wonder if it > > is better to fix dump_net_info() to give the information you actually > > want. > > Yeah, it is true that if you change the container-side veth's name > it'll screw things up, so that's probably good to save. I think it is
Or if you use lxc-device to add a new nic, or the container simply creates a new veth pair internally for use by its application. > useful to be able to change the host bridge the container is attached > to, and in principle it shouldn't screw anything up. So I'm not quite > sure how to deal with that case. > > (Note that none of this matters in LXD land, since LXD is managing all > the configuration for you and you can't change it. It is an issue with > lxc-checkpoint and the config file lxc, though.) Well if we simply don't know what the right thing is, then doing the simplest thing for now is reasonable. _______________________________________________ lxc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-devel
