Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: [RFC] network namespaces

From: Daniel Lezcano <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:40:59 +0200

Dmitry Mishin wrote:
> On Friday 08 September 2006 22:11, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> 
>>actually the light-weight ip isolation runs perfectly
>>fine _without_ CAP_NET_ADMIN, as you do not want the
>>guest to be able to mess with the 'configured' ips at
>>all (not to speak of interfaces here)
> 
> It was only an example. I'm thinking about how to implement flexible solution, 
> which permits light-weight ip isolation as well as full-fledged netwrok 
> virtualization. Another solution is to split CONFIG_NET_NAMESPACE. Is it good 
> for you?

Hi Dmitry,

I am currently working on this and I am finishing a prototype bringing 
isolation at the ip layer. The prototype code is very closed to Andrey's 
patches at TCP/UDP level. So the next step is to merge the prototype 
code with the existing network namespace layer 2 isolation.

IHMO, the solution of spliting CONFIG_NET_NS into CONFIG_L2_NET_NS and 
CONFIG_L3_NET_NS is for me not acceptable because you will need to 
recompile the kernel. The proper way is certainly to have a specific 
flag for the unshare, something like CLONE_NEW_L2_NET and 
CLONE_NEW_L3_NET for example.

   -- Daniel