Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 11:57:24AM +0400, Dmitry Mishin wrote: >> On Friday 08 September 2006 22:11, Herbert Poetzl wrote: >> > actually the light-weight ip isolation runs perfectly >> > fine _without_ CAP_NET_ADMIN, as you do not want the >> > guest to be able to mess with the 'configured' ips at >> > all (not to speak of interfaces here) > >> It was only an example. I'm thinking about how to implement flexible >> solution, which permits light-weight ip isolation as well as >> full-fledged netwrok virtualization. Another solution is to split >> CONFIG_NET_NAMESPACE. Is it good for you? > > well, I think it would be best to have both, as > they are complementary to some degree, and IMHO > both, the full virtualization _and_ the isolation > will require a separate namespace to work, I also > think that limiting the isolation to something > very simple (like one IP + network or so) would > be acceptable for a start, because especially > multi IP or network range checks require a little > more efford to get them right ... > > I do not think that folks would want to recompile > their kernel just to get a light-weight guest or > a fully virtualized one
I certainly agree that we are not at a point where a final decision can be made. A major piece of that is that a layer 2 approach has not shown to be without a performance penalty. A practical question. Do the IPs assigned to guests ever get used by anything besides the guest? Eric - 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
