Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:29:28 +0200 | From | Daniel Lezcano <> | Subject | Re: strict isolation of net interfaces |
| |
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 assume any local IP addresses on v* interfaces in the > "host"? > > And the second question. > Are vlo0, veth0, etc. devices supposed to have hard_xmit routines?
Andrey,
some people are interested by a network full isolation/virtualization like you did with the layer 2 isolation and some other people are interested by a light network isolation done at the layer 3. This one is intended to implement "application container" aka "lightweight container".
In the case of a layer 3 isolation, the network interface is not totally isolated and the debate here is to find a way to have something intuitive to manage the network devices.
IHMO, all the discussion we had convinced me of the needs to have the possibility to choose between a layer 2 or a layer 3 isolation.
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.
Regards
- Daniel - 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/
| |