On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Chiradeep Vittal <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > On 7/25/12 10:52 PM, "Ishimoto, Ryu" <r...@midokura.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Chiradeep Vittal < >>chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Also note that in order to support hotplug and hot-detach of nics, we >>>need >>> commands like CreateNic and AttachNic. >>> >>> >>This is a great point. I feel that the right approach is to consider NIC >>to exist only within the VM lifetime, and thus the API that the cloud >>orchestrator needs to expose are: >> >>- PlugNIC >>- UnplugNIC > > If you consider the Elastic Network Interface feature in AWS, the NIC > could exist independent of a VM. > There are several interesting applications that this enables. > >> >>Where the hypervisor resources must implement these methods in the >>hypervisor-specific way. Depending on the hypervisor, this may include >>creating a VIF, hot-attaching it to the VM, and plugging it into the >>appropriate network. These are only necessary when CloudStack needs to >>support hot-attach and hot-detaching VIFs. > > +1. There are some issues to consider like if it is possible to have a VM > without a NIC and how to issue an IP after hot-attach. > >> >>On a related but a different topic, during the VM launch, VIF plugging has >>to also occur, and it has to be designed in a way that both Xen and >>Libvirt/KVM can agree on. > > And vSphere and OVM... > > [snip] >>This VIF attachment logic should be done in a driver model in which >>vendors can supply their own logic, and I think this is essential for SDN >>integration. Each hypervisor should have its own VIF driver interface, so >>there should be LibvirtVifDriver and XenVifDriver interfaces. They both >>define 'plug' and 'unplug' methods but perhaps differ in signatures. > > This seems similar to what Murali proposed during the NVP integration > effort. > The NVP component wished to add specific meta-data to the hypervisor db. > >>For Xen, you'd only need to make xapi calls but this VIF >>driver gives the vendors a place to customize parameters sent to >>VIF.create >>call, such as setting 'other-configs' values. > > Yes, absolutely. > >> >>Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. I've only recently started >>looking at the CloudStack architecture so please correct me if I said >>something off-base. > > I would welcome a patch with this kind of functionality.
I'll submit patches for this shortly. Thanks for the comments. Tomoe
