Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:59:07 +0100
Hi there,
on Monday, March 3, 2008 at 12:10:55 PM there was posted:
BG> That's true, but the same interfaces end up being available on
BG> the host machine if you don't, which is bad.
A matter of design, true. But if that's bad or not is a question of
what you want and what you don't want ;-)
BG> For example, if one sets up 10.10.23.23 as eth0:0 on the guest,
BG> one gets a 10.10.23.23 as eth0:0 on the host.
You always get this on the host, no matter if you set it up prior or
via guest config.
To be clear, I don't call it bad to configure networks via host
config, but personnaly I prefer to set up configs for a guest
together at one place. An I personally prefer also naming of
interfaces in relation to the guest, so that each interface is
straight bound to the guest also in the naming convention.
But as I wrote - this is a matter of design, everyone should do as
preferred ;-)
--
regards 'n greez,
Guenther Fuchs
(aka "muh" and "powerfox")