From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932239AbWGDM3e (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jul 2006 08:29:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932241AbWGDM3e (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jul 2006 08:29:34 -0400 Received: from mtagate2.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.151]:33446 "EHLO mtagate2.de.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932239AbWGDM3d (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jul 2006 08:29:33 -0400 Message-ID: <44AA5F28.9040109@fr.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:29:28 +0200 From: Daniel Lezcano User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrey Savochkin CC: Sam Vilain , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Cedric Le Goater , hadi@cyberus.ca, Herbert Poetzl , Alexey Kuznetsov , viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, devel@openvz.org, dev@sw.ru, Andrew Morton , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ben Greear , Dave Hansen , Alexey Kuznetsov , "Eric W. Biederman" 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> <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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrey Savochkin wrote: > > 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"? > > And the second question. > Are vlo0, veth0, etc. devices supposed to have hard_xmit routines? Andrey, some people are interested by a network full isolation/virtualization like you did with the layer 2 isolation and some other people are interested by a light network isolation done at the layer 3. This one is intended to implement "application container" aka "lightweight container". In the case of a layer 3 isolation, the network interface is not totally isolated and the debate here is to find a way to have something intuitive to manage the network devices. IHMO, all the discussion we had convinced me of the needs to have the possibility to choose between a layer 2 or a layer 3 isolation. If it is ok for you, we can collaborate to merge the two solutions in one. I will focus on layer 3 isolation and you on the layer 2. Regards - Daniel