![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wednesday 22 November 2006 20:53, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > 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. Two points about solution using netfilter infrastructure: 1) Conntracks and dependant modules are called with the highest priority and will require, that skb context will be the same in input and output chains, else it will be a good place for bugs. So, we should change context before it will be marked by conntracks; 2) This solution has worse performance in comparison with Daniel's solution due to additional lookup of context by ip addr. > > I don't think the layer 3 idea where you just do bind filter fits > the namespace concept very well. > > Eric -- Thanks, Dmitry. - 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: 2006-11-23 09:09 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||