On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 05:55:45PM +0800, Mark Wu wrote:
> On Thu 21 Feb 2013 04:46:16 PM CST, Mark Wu wrote:
> >On 02/18/2013 05:23 PM, David Jaša wrote:
> Sorry for coming to it so late.
Happy new year!
> 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.
I'm not sure how such an added field would help. Isn't the info already
available within the stucture of interface objects? Or do you suggest a
read-only field? I'd appreciate more details.
> For the openvswitch configurator, it needs assistance of iproute2
> because it can't configure ip/netmask/gw and mtu.
Thanks, added to wiki.
> I can't figure out the point to allow different configurators except
> openvswitch coexist. It could cause unnecessary complexity.
I agree that we should decide on a very limited set of valid
> In the proposal, the rollback mechanism can be used to persist
> configuration for iproute2. Why do we still need NetworkManager?
We may need NetworkManager. It is present and running by default on our
target platforms -- inlcuding my laptop -- and it can be a bit rude to
other services that try to configure network devices not through it.
> 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?
Well, I'd say that I've caved in. I see no other way forward without
introducing our own form of persisting network definitions. At least we
keep our current setupNetworks API for that.
vdsm-devel mailing list