On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 01:15:53PM +0100, Leen Besselink wrote: > On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 01:43:54PM +0100, Rob van der Hoeven wrote: > > Hi Leen, > > > > > Yes, that is how I understood it. > > > > > > Your example used the model with bridged and DHCP-client in the container. > > > > > > I wonder what would be the models which fit best for the Freedombox. > > > > > > > My thoughts about this are: > > > > 1) Automatic configuration is good! Almost any potential FreedomBox user > > is likely to have a DHCP server running on the network (on the router), > > lets use this. > > 2) Have two network interfaces, one for the local network and one for > > the FreedomBox tasks. Put the FreedomBox interface in the DMZ of the > > router (the router can do this based on the MAC of the FreedomBox > > interface). The FreedomBox interface runs inside a Program Space > > designed to forward traffic to other Program Spaces (NEVER to programs > > running in User Space!). This is basically what I have been doing over > > the last 3 years using LXC technology. > > 3) Leave existing networks alone, do not change them. For my current > > FreedomBox setup the network must be changed to a bridged network. I do > > not like this at all! Why? Because I know there is a better way, I just > > do not know how its been done. I do a lot of testing inside VirtualBox > > VM's. With VirtualBox you can have a bridged network without changing > > the network of the host. How do they do it? Anyone having ideas about > > this? > > > > This is fine for now, I meant, what about all the networking ideas/projects > around FreedomBox: > > https://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox/ExampleProjects#Networking > https://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox/MeshNetwork > > My real question is: does the DHCP-client fit into that model ? > > What if you have a very integrated FreedomBox where you only run 1 webserver > and multiple > application containers for different applications (maybe even static files > mapped directly > on the webserver to a directory from the webserver). In that case you want it > to be some what > static and not directly connected to the LAN or WAN. >
I obviously wanted to say: What if you have a very integrated FreedomBox where you only run 1 webserver and multiple application containers for different applications (maybe even static files mapped directly on the webserver to a directory of the container). In that case you want the IP-address configuration to be some what static and not directly connected to the LAN or WAN. > Not that this is a real problem for Program Space, it can handle that just > fine. :-) > > I'm just wondering if people have a plan. > > > Happy new year everyone! > > Rob. > > http://freedomboxblog.nl > > > > PS Seems the Docker folks are adding an in-container process too now: > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/docker-dev/m-d3A7bxD70 > > _______________________________________________ > Freedombox-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss _______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
