On Thu 21 Feb 2013 04:46:16 PM CST, Mark Wu wrote:
On 02/18/2013 05:23 PM, David Jaša wrote:

Alon Bar-Lev píše v Ne 17. 02. 2013 v 15:57 -0500:
Hello Antoni,

Great work!
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.

For example:

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:
- name
- ip config
- state
- mtu

this way it would be easier to share common code that handle pure

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

- iproute2
- team
- ovs
- ifcfg

- iproute2
- ovs
- ifcfg

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 the goal.

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.

Alon Bar-Lev

----- 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
non-persistent, etc.

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
intended to
make our software more adaptable to new components and use cases,
distro dependancies as much as possible and improve the
responsiveness and
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
have put
together and help us with your feedback, questions proposals and


Best regards,

Arch mailing list

vdsm-devel mailing list

vdsm-devel mailing list

Sorry for coming to it so late. I get the following comments and questions about the proposal.

I suggest to add a field of top interface to the network, and only apply IpConfig and mtu to it.

For the openvswitch configurator, it needs assistance of iproute2 because it can't configure ip/netmask/gw and mtu.

I can't figure out the point to allow different configurators except openvswitch coexist. It could cause unnecessary complexity.

In the proposal, the rollback mechanism can be used to persist configuration for iproute2. Why do we still need NetworkManager?

I think the solution of "iproute2 + openvswitch + serializing configuration objects" can meet all our requirements. I remember that Dan had a concern of adding a new standard about it in previous discussion. Have we already get agreement on it?


vdsm-devel mailing list

Reply via email to