On 02/18/2013 05:23 PM, David Jaša wrote:
Alon Bar-Lev píše v Ne 17. 02. 2013 v 15:57 -0500:
I am very excited we are going this route, it is first of many to allow us to
be run on different distributions.
I apologize I got to this so late.
Notes for the model, I am unsure if someone already noted.
I think that the abstraction should be more than entity and properties.
nic is a network interface
bridge is a network interface and ports network interfaces
bound is a network interface and slave network interfaces
vlan is a network interface and vlan id
network interface can have:
- ip config
this way it would be easier to share common code that handle pure interfaces.
I don't quite understand the 'Team' configurator, are you suggesting a provider
for each technology?
Team is a new implementation of bonding in Linux kernel IIRC.
- iproute2 provider
- ovs provider
- ifcfg provider
So we can get a configuration of:
I also would like us to explore a future alternative of the network
configuration via crypto vpn directly from qemu to another qemu, the idea is to
have a kerberos like key per layer3(or layer2) destination, while communication
is encrypted at user space and sent to a flat network. The advantage of this is
that we manage logical network and not physical network, while relaying on
hardware to find the best route to destination. The question is how and if we
can provide this via the suggestion abstraction. But maybe it is too soon to
address this kind of future.
Isn't it better to separate the two goals and persuade qemu developers to
implement TLS for migration connections?
+1 for implementing it in qemu
For the open questions:
1. Yes, I think that mode should be non-persistence, persistence providers
should emulate non-persistence operations by diff between what they have and
2. Once vdsm is installed, the mode it runs should be fixed. So the only
question is what is the selected profile during host deployment.
3. I think that if we can avoid aliases it would be nice.
4. Keeping the least persistence information would be flexible. I would love to
see a zero persistence mode available, for example if management interface is
dhcp or manually configured.
I am very fond of the iproute2 configuration, and don't mind if administrator
configures the management interface manually. I think this can supersede the
ifcfg quite easily in most cases. In these rare cases administrator use ovirt
to modify the network interface we may consider delegating persistence to
totally different model. But as far as I understand the problem is solely
related to the management connectivity, so we can implement a simple bootstrap
of non-persistence module to reconstruct the management network setup from vdsm
configuration instead of persisting it to the distribution width configuration.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Antoni Segura Puimedon" <asegu...@redhat.com>
To: a...@ovirt.org, vdsm-de...@fedorahosted.org
Sent: Friday, February 8, 2013 12:54:23 AM
Subject: vdsm networking changes proposal
Hi fellow oVirters!
The network team and a few others have toyed in the past with several
changes like using open vSwitch, talking D-BUS to NM, making the
It is with some of this changes in mind that we (special thanks go to
Peer, Dan Kenigsberg and Igor Lvovsky) have worked in a proposal for
a new architecture for vdsm's networking part. This proposal is
make our software more adaptable to new components and use cases,
distro dependancies as much as possible and improve the
scalability of the networking operations.
To do so, it proposes an object oriented representation of the
elements that come into play in our networking use cases.
But enough of introduction, please go to the feature page that we
together and help us with your feedback, questions proposals and
Arch mailing list
vdsm-devel mailing list
vdsm-devel mailing list