Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>
> The last one in your diagram confuses me - why foo0:1? I would
> have thought it'd be
just thinking aloud. I thought that any kind/type of interface could be
mapped from host to guest.
> host | guest 0 | guest 1 | guest2
> ----------------------+-----------+-----------+------------- -
> | | | |
> |-> l0 <-------+-> lo0 ... | lo0 | lo0
> | | | |
> |-> eth0 | | |
> | | | |
> |-> veth0 <--------+-> eth0 | |
> | | | |
> |-> veth1 <--------+-----------+-----------+-> eth0
> | | | |
> |-> veth2 <-------+-----------+-> eth0 |
>
> I think we should avoid using device aliases, as trying to do
> something like giving eth0:1 to guest1 and eth0:2 to guest2
> while hiding eth0:1 from guest2 requires some uglier code (as
> I recall) than working with full devices. In other words,
> if a namespace can see eth0, and eth0:2 exists, it should always
> see eth0:2.
>
> So conceptually using a full virtual net device per container
> certainly seems cleaner to me, and it seems like it should be
> simpler by way of statistics gathering etc, but are there actually
> any real gains? Or is the support for multiple IPs per device
> actually enough?
>
> Herbert, is this basically how ngnet is supposed to work?
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
