From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: Network virtualization/isolation Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 09:58:04 -0700 Message-ID: References: <453F8800.9070603@fr.ibm.com> <1165155198.3517.86.camel@localhost> <200612041819.01017.dim@openvz.org> <20061204164332.GA11687@MAIL.13thfloor.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Dmitry Mishin , Linux Containers , netdev@vger.kernel.org, hadi@cyberus.ca, Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:34762 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S937136AbWLDQ6v (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Dec 2006 11:58:51 -0500 To: Herbert Poetzl In-Reply-To: <20061204164332.GA11687@MAIL.13thfloor.at> (Herbert Poetzl's message of "Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:43:32 +0100") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Herbert Poetzl writes: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 06:19:00PM +0300, Dmitry Mishin wrote: >> On Sunday 03 December 2006 19:00, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> > Ok. Just a quick summary of where I see the discussion. >> > >> > We all agree that L2 isolation is needed at some point. > >> As we all agreed on this, may be it is time to send patches >> one-by-one? For the beggining, I propose to resend Cedric's >> empty namespace patch as base for others - it is really empty, >> but necessary in order to move further. >> >> After this patch and the following net namespace unshare >> patch will be accepted, > > well, I have neither seen any performance tests showing > that the following is true: > > - no change on network performance without the > space enabled > - no change on network performance on the host > with the network namespaces enabled > - no measureable overhead inside the network > namespace > - good scaleability for a larger number of network > namespaces Yes all important criteria for selecting the implementation. Eric