> On 18 Dec 2015, at 22:26 , Ryan Stone <[email protected]> wrote: > > My employer is going through the process of extending our product to > support multi-tenant networking. The details of what are product does > isn't really relevant to the discussion -- it's enough to know that we have > a number of daemons acting as servers for various network protocols. > Multi-tenacy, as we've defined the feature, imposes the requirement that > our network services be able to communicate with clients from completely > independent networks. This has imposed the following new requirements on us:
Stupid question: if we’d bring back the original feature that processes could attached to different VNET/VIMAGE stacks would that solve some more of your problems without making the list of problems (a lot [thinking of ifp management]) longer and be a way cleaner solution? It’s something that’s been in the back of some of our heads and probably help a lot more people. We’d need to be careful to be able to support both modes (jail with the “security” view) and the other mode with the multi-tenancy-single-daemon in mind (think of routers as well for example). /bz _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-transport To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
