![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com> writes: >> no problem here, but I think we will need another one, >> or some smart way to do the network isolation (layer 3) >> for the network namespace (as alternative to the layer 2 >> approach) ... > > My feeling (Dmitry and Daniel can correct me) is that it will be > addressed with an unshare-like flag : NETNS2 and NETNS3. > >> as they are both complementary in some way, I'm not sure >> a single space will suffice ... > > hmm, so you think there could be a 2 differents namespaces > for network to handle layer 2 or 3. Couldn't that be just a sub part > of net_namespace. The justification is performance and a little on the simplicity side. My personal feel is still that layer 3 is something easier done as a new kind of table in an iptables type infrastructure. And in fact I believe if done that way would capture do what 90%+ of what all of the iptables rules do. So it might be a nice firewalling speed up. I don't think the layer 3 idea where you just do bind filter fits the namespace concept very well. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-11-22 17:59 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||