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

Re: kvm bridge network with systemd-networkd 802.3ad bonding





On Tue, 1 Jan 2019 10:21 am Gary Dale <garyndp@gmail.com wrote:
On 2018-12-30 3:04 a.m., Reco wrote:
>       Hi.
>
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 06:40:57PM -0500, Gary Dale wrote:
>> Any suggestions?
> Keep your bonding as it is.
> Forget about conventional Linux bridges, and do not use them ever.
> Reconfigure your virtual machines to use macvtap (like suggested here -
> [1]), you'll need 'bridge' mode.
>
> Reco
>
> [1] https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/6/html/virtualization_administration_guide/sect-attch-nic-physdev
>

Thanks Reco. I just went to my server's site (I lost remote access with
the current network setup) and reconfigured the network to use macvtap
for bridge. Once I did that it worked like a charm.

After getting rid of the /etc/network/interfaces file (again) and
reinstating the [network] section of my
/etc/systermd/network/management.xml file to assign a static IP, all I
had to do was use

   virsh edit <servername>

to modify the network settings. Basically I changed the entire network
interface segment to:

    <interface type='direct'>
       <mac address='xx:x:xx:xx:xx:xx'/>
       <source dev='bond0' mode='bridge'/>
     </interface>

where you would replace the "xx" with a valid mac address. When I opened
the virtual machine using the Virtual Machine Manager gui, I noticed it
wanted to use an rtl8139 device for the nic, so I changed that to virtio
then fired it up.

Everything is running great. I've got the remote access back and the
local area network is behaving itself.

Since the days libvirt included support for OpenVSwitch I don't even think about using anything else but OVS. It has builtin support for bonding (lacp included), vlans, tunneling etc. You get to manage everything from single piece of software not to mention extensibility to multiple hosts networks and multi tenancy plus centralized network control plane.

Reply to: