>From my experience I think there was a time when libvirt would only
allow the use of networks defined with libvirt. Nowadays (at least
starting with Trusty/12.04) it is picking up and allowing the use of
network interfaces outside the control of libvirt. So I am not sure this
is still in need.
No
** Changed in: libvirt (Ubuntu)
Importance: Medium => Wishlist
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/865515
Title:
virtual machines should not have nat on servers
To manage notifications
> eth0 should be bridged
If anything I'd prefer to go the debian route and, for servers only, not
set up any network at all. I don't care to support "if desktop, NAT.
If server, if there is only eth0; bridge; otherwise, do nothing."
I'm not against shipping a hand-run script which runs netcf to
Serge Hallyn writes ("[Bug 865515] Re: virtual machines should not have nat on
servers"):
> How would you suggest configuring out of the box on install for a
> server?
eth0 should be bridged. Specifically, for a vm host, the primary
network interface (by which I mean the
How would you suggest configuring out of the box on install for a
server?
I don't believe it is reasonable to assume we can bridge eth0 and have
that be the right thing to do. Perhaps we could find the nic for the
default route, but that could be fragile especially in esoteric setups.
Also, addin
Serge Hallyn writes ("[Bug 865515] Re: virtual machines should not have nat on
servers"):
> Agreed the default isn't ideal for servers, but I'm not convinced there
> is a good wya to set up a works-everywhere ideal solution for servers.
> I would assume that any site
(The above question is seeking advice from anyone willing to comment -
thanks)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/865515
Title:
virtual machines should not have nat on servers
To manage
Agreed the default isn't ideal for servers, but I'm not convinced there
is a good wya to set up a works-everywhere ideal solution for servers.
I would assume that any site which cares enough about the network
performance to object to a NATed bridge would have serveral NICs, some
perhaps bonded - an
Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.
** Changed in: libvirt (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/865515
Title:
vir
** Changed in: libvirt (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete => New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/865515
Title:
virtual machines should not have nat on servers
To manage notifications
I agree the default of nat is appropriate for desktops and I feel quite
strongly it should not change there. The default for servers is probably
better as non-nat (though this could be debated), as this bug suggests.
However having different behavior depending on the type of system it is
would like
Dave Walker writes ("[Bug 865515] Re: virtual machines should not have nat on
servers"):
> @Ian, If i understand the bug report correctly, this would seem to be a
> generic bug regarding the default networking option setup as part of
> libvirt. If this is the case, I agree it&
@Ian, If i understand the bug report correctly, this would seem to be a
generic bug regarding the default networking option setup as part of
libvirt. If this is the case, I agree it's not a great ideal for
servers - but also not an unreasonable default for the platform as a
whole use case.
The de
Ian, thanks for the bug report.
I happen to be subscribed to the ubuntu-virt package for mostly
historical reasons, though I'm minimally involved in it today. I have,
however, subscribed Scott Moser and Serge Hallyn, who are now more or
less the maintainers of this functionality. I'll leave it t
14 matches
Mail list logo
