Hi, On Sat, 06.03.2010 at 19:02:33 +0300, Michael Tokarev <m...@tls.msk.ru> wrote: > fragile (I for one will hate packages which substitute my > eth0 with a bridge and change firewall rules behind my back).
agreed. This would easily become very fragile. > And another is to change the script in question (/etc/kvm/kvm-ifup) > to do what is right on your host. This is what I did even before reporting the bug. > option - you know your setup, and it is a configuration file > for exactly this reason. Ok. I missed the "config file" part when I reported the bug. > Maybe it is a good idea to look at the bridge and add the > interface to the bridge if there's only one bridge. But > I don't really see why it is better than just using the > interface with default route -- maybe even that is overkill > and/or illogical: since we don't create the bridge at install > time, why should we try to find such a bridge in kvm-ifup? Ummm... I'd say that the current situation where the default networking is to set up the virtual machine like a PC behind a DSL router with NAT, is too simplistic in almost all cases. But you have a point in that there are many ways to configure something else, and that it would be too complex and error prone to reconfigure the system automatically. Kind regards, --Toni++ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
