From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Mishin Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: [RFC] network namespaces Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 11:57:24 +0400 Message-ID: <200609091157.24734.dim@openvz.org> References: <20060815182029.A1685@castle.nmd.msu.ru> <200609081710.09124.dim@openvz.org> <20060908181154.GA8745@MAIL.13thfloor.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Kirill Korotaev , devel@openvz.org, Kir Kolyshkin , Andrey Savochkin , alexey@sw.ru, Linux Containers , netdev@vger.kernel.org, sam@vilain.net Return-path: Received: from mailhub.sw.ru ([195.214.233.200]:45342 "EHLO relay.sw.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932346AbWIIH6p (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Sep 2006 03:58:45 -0400 To: Herbert Poetzl In-Reply-To: <20060908181154.GA8745@MAIL.13thfloor.at> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Friday 08 September 2006 22:11, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > actually the light-weight ip isolation runs perfectly > fine _without_ CAP_NET_ADMIN, as you do not want the > guest to be able to mess with the 'configured' ips at > all (not to speak of interfaces here) It was only an example. I'm thinking about how to implement flexible solution, which permits light-weight ip isolation as well as full-fledged netwrok virtualization. Another solution is to split CONFIG_NET_NAMESPACE. Is it good for you? -- Thanks, Dmitry.