Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 18:01:24 -0600 From: John Nielsen <lists@jnielsen.net> To: Pete Wright <pete@nomadlogic.org> Cc: "freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org" <freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: NATed or Private Network Setups Message-ID: <AB046E94-BFB7-4A57-BF86-0CA28DAD7673@jnielsen.net> In-Reply-To: <544ADBEB.2030907@nomadlogic.org> References: <544ADBEB.2030907@nomadlogic.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Oct 24, 2014, at 5:08 PM, Pete Wright <pete@nomadlogic.org> wrote: >=20 > Hi All, > Has anyone deployed bhyve using NAT'd or private network setups? I've > been able to deploy bridged interfaces, but I was wondering if anyone > has done other network topologies. Is there anything preventing this > from happening code wise? I reckon it could be achieved by creating a > pseudo interface? Rather than supporting something like epair(4) directly, I believe the plan i= s to allow connecting a bhyve VM to a user-space virtual switch on the host.= Neither is currently available to my knowledge. For a NAT setup today you should be able to add your VM's tap(4) interface a= s the only member of a bridge on the host and assign an IP address to the br= idge interface. Services like DHCP for this virtual subnet would need to als= o be configured on the host in addition to whatever NAT you want to use. For an internal-only network between two or more VMs on the host you could a= lso just use a bridge containing only the VM tap adapters. If you don't want= the host to participate in the network then don't put an IP on the bridge.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AB046E94-BFB7-4A57-BF86-0CA28DAD7673>