Bug 979771
Summary: | RFE - Interface state within the VM OS should be reported in webadmin | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager | Reporter: | David Botzer <dbotzer> |
Component: | RFEs | Assignee: | Andrew Cathrow <acathrow> |
Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | yeylon <yeylon> |
Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | 3.3.0 | CC: | acathrow, bazulay, danken, hateya, iheim, jkt, lpeer, masayag, mkenneth, pstehlik, rbalakri, srevivo |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | FutureFeature |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | network | ||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Enhancement | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | 979765 | Environment: | |
Last Closed: | 2013-08-04 10:17:57 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | Network | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | 770447, 979765, 979772 | ||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
David Botzer
2013-06-30 12:16:36 UTC
*** Bug 979772 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** *** Bug 979765 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** AFAIU this RFE is about changing the property we currently call link state to be an administrative link state and add a new property for link state that would reflect the real connectivity status (from within the guest all the way to the physical link on the host). I think there is a use to the administrative state as it indicates the configuration state from the admin POV (and if there is no guest agent it is the only state that has meaning). Changing to RFE component as this change requires support in the guest agent, VDSM engine and UI. when i first read this, i thought this was about if the guest did ifdown on the interface from within the guest. (In reply to Itamar Heim from comment #4) > when i first read this, i thought this was about if the guest did ifdown on > the interface from within the guest. This was my understanding, too. Guest agent may report both IFF_LOWER_UP (carrier state, the thing controlled by libvirt's link state) and IFF_UP (the thing controlled by the guest OS). But I am not convinced that our customers are interested in this fine granularity; I do not expect any valid case where the link state is changed without the admin's direct intention. Currently, the agent ignores non-IFF_UP interfaces. In my opinion, it would be enough for Engine to report the missing interfaces as "down", and show it greyed out with no IP address. (In reply to Dan Kenigsberg from comment #5) > (In reply to Itamar Heim from comment #4) > > when i first read this, i thought this was about if the guest did ifdown on > > the interface from within the guest. > > This was my understanding, too. Guest agent may report both IFF_LOWER_UP > (carrier state, the thing controlled by libvirt's link state) and IFF_UP > (the thing controlled by the guest OS). But I am not convinced that our > customers are interested in this fine granularity; I do not expect any valid > case where the link state is changed without the admin's direct intention. > > Currently, the agent ignores non-IFF_UP interfaces. In my opinion, it would > be enough for Engine to report the missing interfaces as "down", and show it > greyed out with no IP address. ACK |