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: > > 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 is 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 as the only member of a bridge on the host and assign an IP address to the bridge interface. Services like DHCP for this virtual subnet would need to also 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 also 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>