* Ryota MIBU (r-m...@cq.jp.nec.com) wrote: > Hi Dan, > > I think there is another sub topic, but I am not sure yet. > > I agree that a configurable VIF driver is much better. > > For designing the configuration of vif-plugging, it is required that we > > discuss the granularity of selecting > >VIF Driver. > > Should The granularity of selecting VIF Driver be per node, VM, or VIF? > > Currently, VIF Driver would be configured in nova-compute.conf. > > This means that the granularity is per Hypervisor Node. > > To be more flexible, we might consider the case where VIF1 of VM1 > > connects to bridge and VIF2 of VM1 maps > >to a physical NIC > > directly. > > If so, it may raise another issue; how to determine connection type of > > VIF. > >That's an interesting use case, and something that we haven't tried to deal > >with yet. In your use case, who would > >determine how a VIF was mapped? Would it be a policy described by the > >service provider? Would it be part of the > >VM flavor? Adding this kind of flexibility is certainly possible, though > >you are the first person who has expressed > >a need for this type of flexibility. > > It could be mixed. > I think that a cloud user specifies vNIC option like "physical NIC mapping" > as a VM flavor, > then a service provider determines a hypervisor node and it's available > physical NIC.
Yes, come across similar issue, esp w/ SR-IOV virtual functions instead of physical functions. > It is not suitable that the cloud user specifies physical NIC itself. > But this though is not clear enough to having a session on the summit, > I hope that we discuss this issue on vif-plugging session or somewhere in the > summit. -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~netstack Post to : netstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~netstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
