lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-07-04 14:32    [W:0.022 / U:121.484 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site