[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#860368: installer: create network bridges by default?



On Thu, 2017-04-20 at 07:48 +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> > I used to have a similar setup but eventually migrated to a systemd
> > based setup with systemd-networkd. With s-networkd, I have an
> > independent bridge, which serves KVM/Libvirt, User Mode Linux and
> > systemd-nspawn.
> > 
> 
> Could you give an example of how that is configured and what you need
> in /etc/network/interfaces?  At some point I will also document how
> I've done this with the Open vSwitch packages on both server and
> desktop virtualization.
> 

Mine is very basic. As you noticed, I had (and have) a host side bridge, to
which I bind all my virtual machines.

rrs@learner:~$ cat /etc/systemd/network/localBridge.network 
[Match]
Name=sysbr0

[Network]
DHCPServer=yes
IPForward=yes
IPMasquerade=yes
Address=172.16.20.1
LLMNR=yes
MulticastDNS=yes
DNS=172.16.20.1

[DHCPServer]
PoolOffset=20
2017-04-21 / 16:30:02 ♒♒♒  ☺  
rrs@learner:~$ cat /etc/systemd/network/localBridge.netdev 
[NetDev]
Name=sysbr0
Kind=bridge

2017-04-21 / 16:30:09 ♒♒♒  ☺  
> 


> > 
> Another thing that comes to mind is network-manager:
> 
> - for those who think a pre-configured bridge would make life
> difficult, far worse has been said about network-manager but it is
> still installed by default
> 
> - does network-manager have a way to help people setup a bridge
> suitable for KVM/libvirt when doing virtualization on a desktop level?

My setup has network-manager, which remains independent of the host bridge
managed by systemd-networkd. NM is used for the Host's networking needs to
external interfaces, which is mostly wifi.

I don't think I ever tried setting up a bridge through network-manager. But NM
does show my systemd-networkd based bridge in its listing.

-- 
Given the large number of mailing lists I follow, I request you to CC
me in replies for quicker response

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: