On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 11:18:19PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
Hey! Another question. The documentation about networks say: ╭─────┤ http://libvirt.org/formatnetwork.html#elementsConnect ├───── │Inclusion of the forward element indicates that the virtual network is │to be connected to the physical LAN.Since 0.3.0. The mode attribute │determines the method of forwarding. If there is no forward element, the │network will be isolated from any other network (unless a guest │connected to that network is acting as a router, of course). ╰───── That's exactly what I want: just a vnet interface, no bridge, no routing, no forwarding. However, if I create a network with just that:
"Just a vnet interface, no bridge" means you want no network. Where should the vnet be connected?
#v+ <network> <name>public</name> <uuid>4629ba54-9e33-4a1f-9e45-78a1c8faaddc</uuid> </network> #v- libvirt (2.0.0) adds a bridge stanza: #v+ <network> <name>public</name> <uuid>4629ba54-9e33-4a1f-9e45-78a1c8faaddc</uuid> <bridge name='virbr1' stp='on' delay='0'/> <mac address='52:54:00:15:45:da'/> </network> #v-
Well yes, that's the bridge to connect to, otherwise you would have no network. How would the VMs connect to each other? For the host to have access to that network you would need another interface which is not added. This is an isolated network.
The bridge is created. If I spawn a VM attached to this network, it gets added to the bridge. Any way to have a network where absolutely no setup is done?
Yes, have no network at all =) You should probably describe your problem more closely. Because based on what you are saying you indeed want *no* network at all.
Thanks! -- Use the "telephone test" for readability. - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger) _______________________________________________ libvirt-users mailing list libvirt-users redhat com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-users
Description: Digital signature