lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061204164332.GA11687@MAIL.13thfloor.at>
Date:	Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:43:32 +0100
From:	Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at>
To:	Dmitry Mishin <dim@...nvz.org>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, hadi@...erus.ca,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...l.org>
Subject: Re: Network virtualization/isolation

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 

> I could send network devices virtualization patches for
> review and discussion.

that won't hurt ...

best,
Herbert

> What do you think?
> 
> > The approaches discussed for L2 and L3 are sufficiently orthogonal
> > that we can implement then in either order.  You would need to
> > unshare L3 to unshare L2, but if we think of them as two separate
> > namespaces we are likely to be in better shape.
> >
> > The L3 discussion still has the problem that there has not been
> > agreement on all of the semantics yet.
> >
> > More comments after I get some sleep.
> >
> > Eric
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Dmitry.
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> Containers@...ts.osdl.org
> https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ