From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: [patch 2/6] [Network namespace] Network device sharing by view Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:17:35 -0400 Message-ID: <1151511455.5160.48.camel@jzny2> References: <20060627160241.GB28984@MAIL.13thfloor.at> <44A1689B.7060809@candelatech.com> <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> <20060628181900.A31885@castle.nmd.msu.ru> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , Dave Hansen , Ben Greear , Daniel Lezcano , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, serue@us.ibm.com, clg@fr.ibm.com, Andrew Morton , dev@sw.ru, devel@openvz.org, sam@vilain.net, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, Alexey Kuznetsov , Herbert Poetzl Return-path: Received: from mx02.cybersurf.com ([209.197.145.105]:21648 "EHLO mx02.cybersurf.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932219AbWF1QRp (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:17:45 -0400 To: Andrey Savochkin In-Reply-To: <20060628181900.A31885@castle.nmd.msu.ru> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org 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