Andrey, On Wed, 2006-28-06 at 18:19 +0400, Andrey Savochkin wrote: > Hi Jamal, > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 09:53:23AM -0400, jamal wrote: > >
> > Seeing guestXX-eth0 interfaces by standard tools has certain attractive > sides. But it creates a lot of undesired side effects. > I apologize because i butted into the discussion without perhaps reading the full thread. > For example, ntpd queries all network devices by the same ioctls as ifconfig, > and creates separate sockets bound to IP addresses of each device, which is > certainly not desired with namespaces. > Ok, so the problem is that ntp in this case runs on the host side as opposed to the guest? This would explain why Eric is reacting vehemently to the suggestion. > Or more subtle question: do you want hotplug events to be generated when > guest0-eth0 interface comes up in the root namespace, and standard scripts > to try to set some IP address on this interface?.. > yes, thats what i was thinking. Even go further and actually create guestxx-eth0 on the host (which results in creating eth0 on the guest) and other things. > In my opinion, the downside of this scheme overweights possible advantages, > and I'm personally quite happy with running commands with switched namespace, > like > vzctl exec guest0 ip addr list > vzctl exec guest0 ip link set eth0 up > and so on. Ok, above may be good enough and doesnt require any state it seems on the host side. I got motivated when the word "migration" was mentioned. I understood it to be meaning that a guest may become inoperative for some reason and that its info will be transfered to another guest which may be local or even remote. In such a case, clearly one would need a protocol and the state of all guests sitting at the host. Maybe i am over-reaching. cheers, jamal - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
