Re: [RFC] network namespaces

[Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at>]

On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 11:10:23AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Hi Herbert,
> 
> >well, the 'ip subset' approach Linux-VServer and
> >other Jail solutions use is very clean, it just does
> >not match your expectations of a virtual interface
> >(as there is none) and it does not cope well with
> >all kinds of per context 'requirements', which IMHO
> >do not really exist on the application layer (only
> >on the whole system layer)
> >
> >IMHO that would be quite simple, have a 'namespace'
> >for limiting port binds to a subset of the available
> >ips and another one which does complete network 
> >virtualization with all the whistles and bells, IMHO
> >most of them are orthogonal and can easily be combined
> >
> > - full network virtualization
> > - lightweight ip subset 
> > - both
> >
> >IMHO this requirement only arises from the full system
> >virtualization approach, just look at the other jail
> >solutions (solaris, bsd, ...) some of them do not even 
> >allow for more than a single ip but they work quite
> >well when used properly ...
> 
> As far as I see, vserver use a layer 3 solution but, when needed, the
> veth "component", made by Nestor Pena, is used to provide a layer 2
> virtualization. Right ?

well, no, we do not explicitely use the VETH daemon
for networking, although some folks probably make use
of it, mainly because if you realize that this kind 
of isolation is something different and partially
complementary to network virtualization, you can do
live without the layer 2 virtualization in almost
all cases, nevertheless, for certain purposes layer
2/3 virtualization is required and/or makes perfect
sense

> Having the two solutions, you have certainly a lot if information
> about use cases. 

> From the point of view of vserver, can you give some
> examples of when a layer 3 solution is better/worst than 
> a layer 2 solution ? 

my point (until we have an implementation which clearly
shows that performance is equal/better to isolation)
is simply this:

 of course, you can 'simulate' or 'construct' all the
 isolation scenarios with kernel bridging and routing
 and tricky injection/marking of packets, but, this
 usually comes with an overhead ...

> Who wants a layer 2/3 virtualization and why ?

there are some reasons for virtualization instead of
pure isolation (as Linux-VServer does it for now)

 - context migration/snapshot (probably reason #1)
 - creating network devices inside a guest
   (can help with vpn and similar)
 - allowing non IP protocols (like DHCP, ICMP, etc)

the problem which arises with this kind of network
virtualization is that you need some additional policy
for example to avoid sending 'evil' packets and/or
(D)DoSing one guest from another, which again adds
further overhead, so basically if you 'just' want
to have network isolation, you have to do this:

 - create a 'copy' of your hosts networking inside
   the guest (with virtual interfaces)
 - assign all the same (subset) ips and this to
   the virtual guest interfaces
 - activate some smart bridging code which 'knows'
   what ports can be used and/or mapped 
 - add policy to block unwanted connections and/or
   packets to/from the guest

all this sounds very intrusive and for sure (please
proove me wrong here :) adds a lot of overhead to the
networking itself, while a 'simple' isolation approach
for IP (tcp/udp) is (almost) without any cost, certainly
without overhead once a connection is established.

> These informations will be very useful.

HTH,
Herbert

> Regards
> 
>   -- Daniel