WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

RE: [Xen-devel] IP and hostname for domU

To: Ian Pratt <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, aball@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] IP and hostname for domU
From: jdsw <jdsw2002@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 06:34:05 -0800 (PST)
Cc: xendevel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 06:34:17 -0800
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=qRlqCufU/LtdJDeRv4rcMWjlWykeLzxUOMxjgIp0eZgxfO3F/bvRkDrFKCPlI4NEwosznb+x8yjLgk5SAIMD/9ftrLETroiL4FUIkp6FvAHc503rQs4td9JYcuz2/Jer9EPI78BbvPHwmWD2cn7QhZE1H5HCzILKc7AQUYOnXhQ= ;
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <8A87A9A84C201449A0C56B728ACF491E01F88B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Looking at the response, it seems that these (ip,netmask, hostname etc) end up as kernel cmdline parameters.

does
vif = [ 'ip=192.168.0.12' ]

also end up in kernel parameter similar to

ip = '192.168.0.12'

?

Thanks
/Jd

Ian Pratt <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I strongly dislike the {ip, dhcp, root*} options. They map
> to Linux kernel options. If someone wants to do that in the
> configuration instead of a bootloader configuration, I think
> the should use the ill-named 'extra' option, which is
> appended to the kernel command line.
> This is for paravirtualized linux domU's.
>
> Would be best if ip configuration is done in userspace of the
> guest unless someone would ordinarily do this with kernel
> options and doesn't want to use a bootloader.

Yep, I'd like to see these disappear when we move to the new config file
format.

Should we wish to provide convenience functions for the linux kernel
command line ip pnp config they should be called cmdline_linux_ip_addr
etc.

Ian

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel


Sponsored Link

$420,000 Mortgage for $1,399/month - Think You Pay Too Much For Your Mortgage? Find Out!
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>