Subject: RE: [PATCH] AF_VMCHANNEL address family for guest<->host communication.

From: "Itamar Heim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:26:52 -0500 (EST)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Jeremy Fitzhardinge
 
> The trouble is that it presumes that the host and guest (or whoever the
> endpoints are) are on the same physical machine and will remain that
> way.  Given that live migration is a feature that people seem to like,
> then you'd end up needing to transport this protocol over a real network
> anyway - and at that point you may as well use proper TCP/IP.   The
> alternative is to say either "if you use this feature you can't migrate,
> and you can only resume on the same host", or "you can use this feature,
> and we'll work out a global namespace and proxy it over TCP for you".
> Neither seems very satisfactory.
[IH] when migrating a guest to another host, migration takes care of
closing/opening of the VMChannel on the target host. The VMChannel is
local to the hypervisor, not accessible via network. Migration is not an
issue requiring the VMChannel to use TCP/IP.