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

From: Daniel Lezcano <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:04:38 +0200

Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 04:40:59PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> 

>>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.
> 
> 
> you might want to take a look at the current Linux-VServer
> implementation for the network isolation too, should be
> quite similar to Andrey's approach, but maybe you can
> gather some additional information from there

ok, thanks. I will.

>>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.
> 
> 
> I completely agree here, we need a separate namespace
> for that, so that we can combine isolation and virtualization
> as needed, unless the bind restrictions can be completely
> expressed with an additional mangle or filter table (as
> was suggested)

What is the bind restriction ? Do you want to force binding to a 
specific source address ?

   -- Daniel