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 interfaces.
I don't quite understand the 'Team' configurator, are you suggesting a
provider for each technology?
bridge
- iproute2 provider
- ovs provider
- ifcfg provider
bond
- iproute2
- team
- ovs
- ifcfg
vlan
- iproute2
- ovs
- ifcfg
So we can get a configuration of:
bridge:iproute2
bond:team
vlan:ovs
?
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.
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.
Regards,
Alon Bar-Lev
----- Original Message -----
From: "Antoni Segura Puimedon" <asegurap(a)redhat.com>
To: arch(a)ovirt.org, vdsm-devel(a)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
important
changes like using open vSwitch, talking D-BUS to NM, making the
network
non-persistent, etc.
It is with some of this changes in mind that we (special thanks go to
Livnat
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,
eliminate
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
different
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
extensions.
http://www.ovirt.org/Feature/NetworkReloaded
Best regards,
Toni
_______________________________________________
Arch mailing list
Arch(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch