[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1ejrvtlje.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:53:57 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>
Cc: Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>, Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Dmitry Mishin <dim@...ru>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch -mm] net namespace: empty framework
Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com> writes:
>> no problem here, but I think we will need another one,
>> or some smart way to do the network isolation (layer 3)
>> for the network namespace (as alternative to the layer 2
>> approach) ...
>
> My feeling (Dmitry and Daniel can correct me) is that it will be
> addressed with an unshare-like flag : NETNS2 and NETNS3.
>
>> as they are both complementary in some way, I'm not sure
>> a single space will suffice ...
>
> hmm, so you think there could be a 2 differents namespaces
> for network to handle layer 2 or 3. Couldn't that be just a sub part
> of net_namespace.
The justification is performance and a little on the simplicity side.
My personal feel is still that layer 3 is something easier done
as a new kind of table in an iptables type infrastructure. And in
fact I believe if done that way would capture do what 90%+ of what
all of the iptables rules do. So it might be a nice firewalling speed up.
I don't think the layer 3 idea where you just do bind filter fits
the namespace concept very well.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists