Re: [Xen-devel] BUG: [?] host-only networking under HVM is broken with custom script

["Ray Barnes" <tical.net@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> It depends what network topology you want. Most people want all VIFs on the
> same bridge shared with a physical network interface.
>
> What does bridge-per-vif let you do that you couldn't do by other means?

I definitely can't have all my VIFs on a bridge with the physical NIC.
 My environment calls for routing IP blocks with the nexthop set to
the IP of the dom0 - this meets operational requirements and allows me
to configure paravirt and HVM domUs similarly.  If I bridged all VIFs
to the physical interface, I'd have to have a Switched Virtual
Interface for each HVM (for portability and other reasons) - this is a
broken methodology.  Many switches (i.e. C3550) run out of gas when
you configure a bunch of SVIs.  And in some cases I don't have
administrative control over the infrastructure in front of the dom0 so
adding SVIs becomes even more cumbersome than normal.  Much easier to
just aggregate and route big blocks of IPs and make the dom0 split
them off every which way.

That's a general overview, but as to your question on why I need
bridge-per-vif, traffic accounting and Layer 2 isolation are good
reasons IMO.

-Ray

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel