Re: strict isolation of net interfaces

[Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@fr.ibm.com>]

Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> I still can't completely understand your direction of thoughts.
> Could you elaborate on IP address assignment in your diagram, please?  For
> example, guest0 wants 127.0.0.1 and 192.168.0.1 addresses on its lo
> interface, and 10.1.1.1 on its eth0 interface.
> Does this diagram assume any local IP addresses on v* interfaces in the
> "host"?
>
> And the second question.
> Are vlo0, veth0, etc. devices supposed to have hard_xmit routines?


Andrey,

some people are interested by a network full isolation/virtualization 
like you did with the layer 2 isolation and some other people are 
interested by a light network isolation done at the layer 3. This one is 
intended to implement "application container" aka "lightweight container".

In the case of a layer 3 isolation, the network interface is not totally 
isolated and the debate here is to find a way to have something 
intuitive to manage the network devices.

IHMO, all the discussion we had convinced me of the needs to have the 
possibility to choose between a layer 2 or a layer 3 isolation.

If it is ok for you, we can collaborate to merge the two solutions in 
one. I will focus on layer 3 isolation and you on the layer 2.

Regards

  - Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/