-Original Message-
From: sendmail [mailto:justsendmailnothinge...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Laine Stump
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 10:36 PM
To: Christian Benvenuti (benve)
Cc: Libvirt
Subject: Re: [libvirt] Network device abstraction aka virtual switch -
V3
On 06/16/2011 09:56
On 07/03/2011 03:42 PM, Christian Benvenuti (benve) wrote:
-Original Message-
From: sendmail [mailto:justsendmailnothinge...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Can this (the fact that the desired mode of operation will not allow for
sharing of interfaces) be determined absolutely from the existing
On 06/16/2011 09:56 PM, Christian Benvenuti (benve) wrote:
Laine Stump wrote:
Interface Pools
---
In many cases, a single host network may have multiple physical
network devices associated with it (especially in the case of an
SRIOV-capable ethernet card, which will have several
The current modes are:
forward layer='network' mode='route|nat'/
(in addition to not listing any mode, which equates to isolated)
Here are suggested new modes:
Has anybody considered the migration requirements of networks in this
new layout?
If you move a machine attached to a
On 06/21/2011 05:06 AM, Neil Wilson wrote:
The current modes are:
forward layer='network' mode='route|nat'/
(in addition to not listing any mode, which equates to isolated)
Here are suggested new modes:
Has anybody considered the migration requirements of networks in this
new layout?
If you
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 08:29:08PM -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
This is a followup to
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-April/msg00591.html
(and an even earlier draft) which I alluded to here:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-June/msg00383.html
Network
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 04:40:19PM +0200, Gerhard Stenzel wrote:
On Sun, 2011-06-12 at 20:29 -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
!-- A macvtap passthrough connection (one guest interface per dev)
--
network
namered-network/name
forward layer='link' mode='passthrough' dev='eth10'/
interface
See my comments inline.
Thank you,
Oved
- Original Message -
From: Laine Stump la...@laine.org
To: Libvirt libvir-list@redhat.com
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 3:29:08 AM
Subject: [libvirt] Network device abstraction aka virtual switch - V3
This is a followup to
https
On Sun, 2011-06-12 at 20:29 -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
...
II. Changes to network definition
===
...
He also suggested adding a new layer='network|link' attribute to
forward. I'm not convinced that item is necessary (it seems
redundant), but am including
On Sun, 2011-06-12 at 20:29 -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
!-- A macvtap passthrough connection (one guest interface per dev)
--
network
namered-network/name
forward layer='link' mode='passthrough' dev='eth10'/
interface dev='eth10'/
interface dev='eth11'/
interface dev='eth12'/
interface
On 06/12/2011 08:29 PM, Laine Stump wrote:
This is a followup to
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-April/msg00591.html
(and an even earlier draft) which I alluded to here:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-June/msg00383.html
Network device abstraction aka
...@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Laine Stump
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 5:29 PM
To: Libvirt
Subject: [libvirt] Network device abstraction aka virtual switch - V3
This is a followup to
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-April/msg00591.html
(and an even earlier draft) which I alluded
This is a followup to
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-April/msg00591.html
(and an even earlier draft) which I alluded to here:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-June/msg00383.html
Network device abstraction aka virtual switch - V3
On 06/12/2011 08:29 PM, Laine Stump wrote:
* Does anyone have better names for brctl-bridge and
macvtap-bridge?
How about using direct instead of macvtap-bridge, and
direct-private, direct-vepa, and direct-passthrough for private,
vepa, and passthrough?
I still can't think of anything
14 matches
Mail list logo
