I am using the bridge.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Dennis J. <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dennisml@conversis.de">dennisml@conversis.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On 07/25/2009 10:24 PM, Christopher G. Stach II wrote:<br>
> ----- "Rich"<<a href="mailto:rhdyes@gmail.com">rhdyes@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> When using a para-virtualized guest, which network type should be<br>
>> used?<br>
><br>
> Are you asking whether NAT vs. bridged is better? If so, it doesn't matter. The guest is virtualized, remember? It doesn't know or care about what's underneath. What matters is your physical host's network.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>That might be true for desktop virtualization but when virtualizing a<br>
server you probably want to go for the bridge to have your system reachable<br>
from the outside and make it a proper member of your network infrastructure.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<font color="#888888"> Dennis<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
CentOS-virt mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CentOS-virt@centos.org">CentOS-virt@centos.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt" target="_blank">http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>