Andrey Savochkin wrote:
I still can't completely understand your direction of thoughts.
Could you elaborate on IP address assignment in your diagram, please? For
example, guest0 wants 127.0.0.1 and 192.168.0.1 addresses on its lo
interface, and 10.1.1.1 on its eth0 interface.
Does this diagram
Sam Vilain wrote:
Daniel Lezcano wrote:
If it is ok for you, we can collaborate to merge the two solutions in
one. I will focus on layer 3 isolation and you on the layer 2.
So, you're writing a LSM module or adapting the BSD Jail LSM, right? :)
Sam.
No. I am adapting a prototype of
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 10:56:13AM +0200, Cedric Le Goater wrote:
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
The last one in your diagram confuses me - why foo0:1? I would
have thought it'd be
just thinking aloud. I thought that any kind/type of interface could be
mapped from host to guest.
host
Andrey Savochkin wrote:
Why special case loopback?
Why not:
host | guest 0 | guest 1 | guest2
--+---+---+--
| | | |
|- lo | | |
|
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
The last one in your diagram confuses me - why foo0:1? I would
have thought it'd be
just thinking aloud. I thought that any kind/type of interface could be
mapped from host to guest.
host | guest 0 | guest 1 | guest2
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Cedric Le Goater ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
we could work on virtualizing the net interfaces in the host, map them to
eth0 or something in the guest and let the guest handle upper network layers ?
lo0 would just be exposed relying on skbuff tagging to discriminate
Daniel Lezcano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Cedric Le Goater ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
we could work on virtualizing the net interfaces in the host, map them to
eth0 or something in the guest and let the guest handle upper network layers
?
lo0 would just be exposed
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Daniel Lezcano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Cedric Le Goater ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
we could work on virtualizing the net interfaces in the host, map them to
eth0 or something in the guest and let the guest handle upper network layers ?
Quoting Eric W. Biederman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
This whole debate on network devices show up in multiple network namespaces
is just silly. The only reason for wanting that appears to be better
management.
A damned good reason. Clearly we want the parent namespace to be able
to control what
Serge E. Hallyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Quoting Eric W. Biederman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
This whole debate on network devices show up in multiple network namespaces
is just silly. The only reason for wanting that appears to be better
management.
A damned good reason.
Better management
Daniel Lezcano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Daniel Lezcano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Cedric Le Goater ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
we could work on virtualizing the net interfaces in the host, map them to
eth0 or something in the guest and let
Daniel Lezcano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Cedric Le Goater ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
we could work on virtualizing the net interfaces in the host, map them to
eth0 or something in the guest and let the guest handle upper network layers
?
lo0 would just be exposed
Quoting Cedric Le Goater ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Sam Vilain wrote:
jamal wrote:
note: personally I'm absolutely not against virtualizing
the device names so that each guest can have a separate
name space for devices, but there should be a way to
'see' _and_ 'identify' the interfaces from
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
The last one in your diagram confuses me - why foo0:1? I would
have thought it'd be
host | guest 0 | guest 1 | guest2
--+---+---+--
| | | |
|- l0
14 matches
Mail list logo
