Hi! I've got a question: I'm tinkering with a harvester setup on my spare time, and I'm trying to see if I can somehow make this work in my home-lab setup. I have two servers, with 2x10G NIC's + 1G NIC. In my current setup(not using harvester) the 2x10G interfaces are direct-attach between the servers for communication between the hosts, while I use the 1G interfaces to have the VM's reach the rest of the network + a bunch of routing trickery to make it work. all in all it is rather yanky, and after spinning up harvester on a few VM's I have to say I like what I see so far. But I'm a networking guy that's tinkering with this on my spare time, so I'm not sure how I can shoehorn this into my current setup. Am I right to assume that the harvester management interface, is the backplane for traffic between VM's and hosts? so I could in theory set up the harvester management network to be a simple point-to-point link between these machines? And is there anything I can do to also make the hosts reachable from the rest of the network, without making things too janky?

There's a nice architecture diagram at https://docs.harvesterhci.io/v1.0/ but unfortunately the inter-node network isn't labelled though because it's in blue you're left wondering if it's the management network.

Alright, so the blue management network is what I in my terms would call the backplane. And can I add this network to two interfaces, and set up the iptables or whatever harvester runs, so that I can say that traffic that isn't to the LAN is going to traverse these links? Say something like: node1: eth0.management: 192.168.0.111 eth0.vlan1: 192.168.0.221/24 eth1.management: 10.0.0.0/31 node2: eth0.management: 192.168.0.112/24 eth0.vlan1: 192.168.0.222/24 eth1.management: 10.0.0.1/31 where eth0 is connected to the LAN, and eth1 is the point to point link.

I don't think you can define two management networks, even on different interfaces (though both interfaces could be bonded). Instead you'd have to name the backplane one as backplane (for example). I also think you'll have to use a /30 subnet as /31 might work for Cisco but not here.

Well, if the major hurdle is the interface name and netmask I should be fine 😊 And yeah, as I mentioned, I'm a networking guy, we like our /31's for point to point 😛