netdev

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Message-Id: <200612042002.49094.dim@openvz.org>
Date:	Mon, 4 Dec 2006 20:02:48 +0300
From:	Dmitry Mishin <dim@...nvz.org>
To:	Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at>
Cc:	Dmitry Mishin <dim@...nvz.org>,
	"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 Monday 04 December 2006 19:43, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> 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
These questions are for complete L2 implementation, not for these 2 empty 
patches. If you need some data relating to Andrey's implementation, I'll get 
it. Which test do you accept?
 
>
> > 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

-- 
Thanks,
Dmitry.
-
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

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