Andre Oppermann wrote:
Julian Elischer wrote:
Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2007, Ed Schouten wrote:
Hi,
* Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm working on a "light" variant of multi-IPv[46] per jail. It
doesn't
create an entirely new network instance per jail and probably is more
suitable for low- to mid-end (virtual) hosting. In those cases you
normally want the host administrator to excercise full control over
IP address and firewall configuration of the individual jails. For
high-end stuff where you offer jail based virtual machines or network
and routing simulations Marco's work is more appropriate.
Is there a way for us to colaborate on this? I'd really love to work on
this sort of stuff and I think it's really interesting to dig in that
sort of code.
I already wrote an initial patch which changes the system call and
sysctl format of the jail structures which allow you to specify
lists of
addresses for IPv4 and IPv6.
talk with Marko Zec about "immunes".
http://www.tel.fer.hr/zec/vimage/
and http://www.tel.fer.hr/imunes/
It has a complete virtualized stack for each jail.
ipfw, routing table, divert sockets, sysctls, statistics, netgraph etc.
Like I said there is a place for both approaches and they are
complementary. A couple of hosting ISPs I know do not want to
give a full virtualized stack to their customers. They want to
retain full control over the network configuration inside and
outside of the jail. In those (mass-hosting) cases it is done
that way to ease support (less stuff users can fumble) and to
properly position those products against full virtual machines
and dedicated servers. Something like this: jail < vimage <
virtual machine < dedicated server.
He as a set of patches against 7-current that now implements nearly
all the
parts you need. It Will be discussed at the devsummit on Wed/Thurs
and we'll be discussing whether it is suitable for general inclusion
or to be kept as patches. Note, it can be compiled out, which leaves a
pretty much binarily compatible OS, so I personally would like to see
it included.
I don't think it is mature enough for inclusion into the upcoming
7.0R. Not enough integration time. Food for FreeBSD 8.0.
Actually I am not sure I completely agree. Consider:
It is nearly all implemented by macros, which nearly all result in the same
or similar code as before when turned off.
No-one is suggesting that we turn it on for 7.0. but
Having it in earlier will result in more beating on it..
I however do admit that others may not be as daring as I am on this :-)
One thing that could be born in mind however is that the various parts
of this that have been virtualised could be used by other
virtualisation possibilies.. For example it is possible that
the places that vimage needs to touch with its macros are the same places that
your implementation might be looking at changing..
It is also possible that the jail code could do the same.
Possibly having different sets of the same macros could implement
a sliding scale of virtualisation, from plain old 'chroot' though
to full vimage.
I might add that What Marco has now is very functional
and that people should kick its tires (tyres) a bit..
the p4 branch is:
//projects/vimage/... for those who want to look at it.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
