"Chris R. Jones" <ch...@versecorp.net> writes: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:21:43PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> ch...@versecorp.net wrote: >> >>Did you tried with the macvlan ? >> >> >> > >> >I just tried it - and it does work - I can move the vlan interfaces into >> >the >> >namespace. But that's not a solution for us - we really need to support >> >communications out to other nodes on the network that we can't count on >> >using >> >vlan. >> > >> Perhaps I am misunderstand but the macvlan is just an "eth aliased" >> interface, so you should but able to communicate with the outside world >> and keep the same performances as the physical device, no ? The only >> drawback with the macvlan is you can not communicate on the same host >> between different namespaces.
And that drawback (when all the macvlan are off of the same network device is actually a bug). >We did some benchmark last year wih the >> macvlan and we got very good results. > > Oh great, I confused the macvlan support with 802.1q vlan interfaces > (as added through vconfig). macvlan does look very promising - I was able > to create a macvlan interface and assign it to my namespace - looks pretty > good! Good to hear you have a solution. Putting physical hardware devices in network namespaces is definitely on the todo. But it looks to be a while before we get all of the details sorted out. Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list contain...@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel