From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S1751361AbWGDC7q@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751361AbWGDC7q (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:59:46 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751294AbWGDC7p
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:59:45 -0400
Received: from watts.utsl.gen.nz ([202.78.240.73]:64184 "EHLO
	watts.utsl.gen.nz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750722AbWGDC7o
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:59:44 -0400
Message-ID: <44A9D9C6.4060508@vilain.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:00:22 +1200
From: Sam Vilain <sam@vilain.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060521)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrey Savochkin <saw@swsoft.com>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>, Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com>,
       hadi@cyberus.ca, Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at>,
       Alexey Kuznetsov <alexey@sw.ru>, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk,
       devel@openvz.org, dev@sw.ru, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@fr.ibm.com>,
       Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>, Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>,
       Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>,
       "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Subject: Re: strict isolation of net interfaces
References: <20060627225213.GB2612@MAIL.13thfloor.at> <1151449973.24103.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060627234210.GA1598@ms2.inr.ac.ru> <m1mzbyj6ft.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com> <20060628133640.GB5088@MAIL.13thfloor.at> <1151502803.5203.101.camel@jzny2> <44A44124.5010602@vilain.net> <44A450D1.2030405@fr.ibm.com> <20060630023947.GA24726@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <44A49121.4050004@vilain.net> <20060703185350.A16826@castle.nmd.msu.ru>
In-Reply-To: <20060703185350.A16826@castle.nmd.msu.ru>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Andrey Savochkin wrote:
>> Why special case loopback?
>>
>> Why not:
>>
>> host                  |  guest 0  |  guest 1  |  guest2
>> ----------------------+-----------+-----------+--------------
>>   |                   |           |           |
>>   |-> lo              |           |           |
>>   |                   |           |           |
>>   |-> vlo0  <---------+-> lo      |           |
>>   |                   |           |           |
>>   |-> vlo1  <---------+-----------+-----------+-> lo
>>   |                   |           |           |
>>   |-> vlo2   <--------+-----------+-> lo      |
>>   |                   |           |           |
>>   |-> eth0            |           |           |
>>   |                   |           |           |
>>   |-> veth0  <--------+-> eth0    |           |
>>   |                   |           |           |
>>   |-> veth1  <--------+-----------+-----------+-> eth0
>>   |                   |           |           |
>>   |-> veth2   <-------+-----------+-> eth0    |
>>     
>
> I still can't completely understand your direction of thoughts.
> Could you elaborate on IP address assignment in your diagram, please?  For
> example, guest0 wants 127.0.0.1 and 192.168.0.1 addresses on its lo
> interface, and 10.1.1.1 on its eth0 interface.
> Does this diagram assume any local IP addresses on v* interfaces in the
> "host"?
>   

Well, Eric already pointed out some pretty good reasons why this thread
should die.

The idea is that each "lo" interface would have the same set of
addresses. Which would make routing on the host confusing. Yet another
reason to kill this idea. Let's just make better tools instead.

Sam.

> And the second question.
> Are vlo0, veth0, etc. devices supposed to have hard_xmit routines?
>