From: James Chapman <jchapman@katalix.com>
To: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>
Cc: "François Cachereul" <f.cachereul@alphalink.fr>,
"Paul Mackerras" <paulus@samba.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] ppp: Allow ppp device connected to an l2tp session to change of namespace
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:51:30 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52695012.6090700@katalix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131024155354.GQ2704@kvack.org>
On 24/10/13 16:53, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 04:43:42PM +0100, James Chapman wrote:
>> I'm thinking about the implications of a skb in the net namespace of the
>> ppp interface passing through a tunnel socket which is in another
>> namespace. I think net namespaces are completely isolated.
>>
>> To keep your ppp interfaces isolated from each other, have you
>> considered using netfilter to prevent data being passed between ppp
>> interfaces?
>
> Using network namespaces for this is far more efficient. We've already
> added support for doing this to other tunneling interfaces. This approach
> also makes creating VPNs where there is re-use of the private address space
> between different customers far easier to implement.
>
> -ben
Yes, it's definitely more efficient and potentially useful, I agree.
But unlike the other tunneling interfaces for which this has already
been done, L2TP uses a socket for its tunnel and a skb will cross net
namespace boundaries while passing through the socket. I remember a
similar discussion came up several months ago with vxlan which also uses
UDP sockets. See http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg221498.html.
Changing the behaviour of ppp interfaces only when they are created by
l2tp feels wrong to me, unless it is the first step in doing the same
for all ppp interfaces.
--
James Chapman
Katalix Systems Ltd
http://www.katalix.com
Catalysts for your Embedded Linux software development
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: James Chapman <jchapman@katalix.com>
To: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>
Cc: "François Cachereul" <f.cachereul@alphalink.fr>,
"Paul Mackerras" <paulus@samba.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] ppp: Allow ppp device connected to an l2tp session to change of namespace
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 17:51:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52695012.6090700@katalix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131024155354.GQ2704@kvack.org>
On 24/10/13 16:53, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 04:43:42PM +0100, James Chapman wrote:
>> I'm thinking about the implications of a skb in the net namespace of the
>> ppp interface passing through a tunnel socket which is in another
>> namespace. I think net namespaces are completely isolated.
>>
>> To keep your ppp interfaces isolated from each other, have you
>> considered using netfilter to prevent data being passed between ppp
>> interfaces?
>
> Using network namespaces for this is far more efficient. We've already
> added support for doing this to other tunneling interfaces. This approach
> also makes creating VPNs where there is re-use of the private address space
> between different customers far easier to implement.
>
> -ben
Yes, it's definitely more efficient and potentially useful, I agree.
But unlike the other tunneling interfaces for which this has already
been done, L2TP uses a socket for its tunnel and a skb will cross net
namespace boundaries while passing through the socket. I remember a
similar discussion came up several months ago with vxlan which also uses
UDP sockets. See http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg221498.html.
Changing the behaviour of ppp interfaces only when they are created by
l2tp feels wrong to me, unless it is the first step in doing the same
for all ppp interfaces.
--
James Chapman
Katalix Systems Ltd
http://www.katalix.com
Catalysts for your Embedded Linux software development
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-24 16:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-24 10:30 [RFC PATCH net-next] ppp: Allow ppp device connected to an l2tp session to change of namespace François Cachereul
2013-10-24 10:30 ` François Cachereul
2013-10-24 10:55 ` James Chapman
2013-10-24 10:55 ` James Chapman
2013-10-24 13:41 ` François Cachereul
2013-10-24 13:41 ` François Cachereul
2013-10-24 15:43 ` James Chapman
2013-10-24 15:43 ` James Chapman
2013-10-24 15:53 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2013-10-24 15:53 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2013-10-24 16:51 ` James Chapman [this message]
2013-10-24 16:51 ` James Chapman
2013-10-25 8:27 ` François Cachereul
2013-10-25 8:27 ` François Cachereul
2013-10-25 8:24 ` François Cachereul
2013-10-25 8:24 ` François Cachereul
2013-10-24 14:23 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2013-10-24 14:23 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2013-10-25 8:05 ` terry white
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=52695012.6090700@katalix.com \
--to=jchapman@katalix.com \
--cc=bcrl@kvack.org \
--cc=f.cachereul@alphalink.fr \
--cc=linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.