On 26/01/14 15:40, Mike Kolesnik wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> On 01/23/2014 08:34 PM, Juan Pablo Lorier wrote: >>> Hi Itamar, >>> >>> I don't know if I get your post right, but to me, it seems that if so >>> many users hit the same rock, it should mean that this should be >>> documented somewhere visible and in my opinion, push on getting bug >>> 1049476 <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049476> solved asap. >>> Regards, >> >> 1. yes, too many issues on this one, hinting we should provide better >> text explaining this in the UI. >> >> 2. the bug you referenced[1] >> Bug 1049476 - [RFE] Mix untagged and tagged Logical Networks on the same NIC >> >> is actually supported, as long as the untagged logical network is not a >> VM network (so VMs associated with it would not be able to see/create >> other logical networks traffic). >> >> 3. considering how prevalent this is, maybe we should allow doing this, >> even for VM networks, with a big red warning, rather than block it, >> which seems to be failing everyone. > > Besides that it's technically not possible in the way we currently use the > Linux Bridge [1], > I'm not sure what's to gain from representing a single "flat" network with > multiple representations. > > Seems to me like there may be a couple different points here: > * ovirtmgmt is VM network by default - should be configurable on setup and/or > DC creation. > If it's such a prevalent issue, we should consider a default of non VM > network (users can create a flat network and use it quite easily anyway, if > they want).
>From a UX point of view I don't think this would be desireable. I think it's convenient for a new user to be able to use just the one default network for everything (including connection to VMs). > * if people want to represent different L3 networks on the same L2 network, > it is worthwhile to design a proper solution > > Either way, I wouldn't push for allowing multiple bridged networks on the > same physical interface (or bond). > > [1] and also not allowed in OpenStack Neutron IIUC. > >> >> cc-ing some more folks for their thoughts. >> >> >> [1] in the future, please use number-name formatso not everyone would >> have to open it to understand >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
