You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 24, 2022. It is now read-only.
On its current state, there is a requirement for setting the bridge name that will be created and will allow your machine to comunicate with the container
Which is true, you have to specify lxc__bridge_name: 'vlxcbr1' if you want private networking with the lxc provider to work. It sounds like this would be improved in a future release.
For a short term / quick win improvement, would it make sense to simply default the lxc__bridge_name to 'vlxcbr1'?
That way you don't have to modify each private_network configuration across Vagrantfiles.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
P.S.: it seems that you can safely add lxc__bridge_name to existing private_network configurations without affecting other providers. At least for virtualbox it was not a problem.
Eventually we might see some "automagical bridge creation" in place, making the lxc__bridge_name completely optional, but it's not on my short term plans. If someone is up for putting a PR with that I'll consider bringing it in for next release on 1.x series :-)
The README says
Which is true, you have to specify
lxc__bridge_name: 'vlxcbr1'
if you want private networking with the lxc provider to work. It sounds like this would be improved in a future release.For a short term / quick win improvement, would it make sense to simply default the
lxc__bridge_name
to 'vlxcbr1'?That way you don't have to modify each
private_network
configuration across Vagrantfiles.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: