Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [RFC] network namespaces
Re: [RFC] network namespaces [message #5915 is a reply to message #5177] |
Tue, 05 September 2006 13:34   |
Daniel Lezcano
Messages: 417 Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi all,
>> This complete separation of namespaces is very useful for at least two
>> purposes:
>> - allowing users to create and manage by their own various tunnels and
>> VPNs, and
>> - enabling easier and more straightforward live migration of groups of
>> processes with their environment.
>
>
> I conceptually prefer this approach, but I seem to recall there were
> actual problems in using this for checkpoint/restart of lightweight
> (application) containers. Performance aside, are there any reasons why
> this approach would be problematic for c/r?
I agree with this approach too, separated namespaces is the best way to
identify the network ressources for a specific container.
> I'm afraid Daniel may be on vacation, and don't know who else other than
> Eric might have thoughts on this.
Yes, I was in "vacation", but I am back :)
>>2. People expressed concerns that complete separation of namespaces
>> may introduce an undesired overhead in certain usage scenarios.
>> The overhead comes from packets traversing input path, then output path,
>> then input path again in the destination namespace if root namespace
>> acts as a router.
Yes, performance is probably one issue.
My concerns was for layer 2 / layer 3 virtualization. I agree a layer 2
isolation/virtualization is the best for the "system container".
But there is another family of container called "application container",
it is not a system which is run inside a container but only the
application. If you want to run a oracle database inside a container,
you can run it inside an application container without launching <init>
and all the services.
This family of containers are used too for HPC (high performance
computing) and for distributed checkpoint/restart. The cluster runs
hundred of jobs, spawning them on different hosts inside an application
container. Usually the jobs communicates with broadcast and multicast.
Application containers does not care of having different MAC address and
rely on a layer 3 approach.
Are application containers comfortable with a layer 2 virtualization ? I
don't think so, because several jobs running inside the same host
communicate via broadcast/multicast between them and between other jobs
running on different hosts. The IP consumption is a problem too: 1
container == 2 IP (one for the root namespace/ one for the container),
multiplicated with the number of jobs. Furthermore, lot of jobs == lot
of virtual devices.
However, after a discussion with Kirill at the OLS, it appears we can
merge the layer 2 and 3 approaches if the level of network
virtualization is tunable and we can choose layer 2 or layer 3 when
doing the "unshare". The determination of the namespace for the incoming
traffic can be done with an specific iptable module as a first step.
While looking at the network namespace patches, it appears that the
TCP/UDP part is **very** similar at what is needed for a layer 3 approach.
Any thoughts ?
Daniel
|
|
|
 |
|
[RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
[PATCH 1/9] network namespaces: core and device list
|
 |
|
Re: [PATCH 1/9] network namespaces: core and device list
|
 |
|
Re: [PATCH 1/9] network namespaces: core and device list
|
 |
|
[PATCH 2/9] network namespaces: IPv4 routing
|
 |
|
[PATCH 6/9] allow proc_dir_entries to have destructor
|
 |
|
[PATCH 5/9] network namespaces: async socket operations
|
 |
|
Re: [PATCH 5/9] network namespaces: async socket operations
|
 |
|
Re: [PATCH 5/9] network namespaces: async socket operations
|
 |
|
[PATCH 7/9] net_device seq_file
|
 |
|
[PATCH 8/9] network namespaces: device to pass packets between namespaces
|
 |
|
[PATCH 4/9] network namespaces: socket hashes
|
 |
|
Re: [PATCH 4/9] network namespaces: socket hashes
|
 |
|
Re: [PATCH 4/9] network namespaces: socket hashes
|
 |
|
Re: [PATCH 4/9] network namespaces: socket hashes
|
 |
|
[PATCH 9/9] network namespaces: playing with pass-through device
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
By: serue on Wed, 16 August 2006 11:53
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
By: ebiederm on Wed, 16 August 2006 17:35
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
By: dev on Thu, 17 August 2006 08:28
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
By: ebiederm on Tue, 05 September 2006 14:45
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: Re: [RFC] network namespaces
By: kir on Wed, 06 September 2006 17:36
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
By: ebiederm on Wed, 06 September 2006 18:34
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
By: kir on Wed, 06 September 2006 18:56
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
RE: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
By: ebiederm on Thu, 07 September 2006 18:29
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: Re: [RFC] network namespaces
By: dev on Thu, 07 September 2006 16:20
|
 |
|
Re: Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
By: ebiederm on Tue, 12 September 2006 03:26
|
 |
|
Re: Re: [RFC] network namespaces
By: ebiederm on Sun, 10 September 2006 03:41
|
 |
|
Re: Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
By: ebiederm on Tue, 12 September 2006 03:28
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: Re: [RFC] network namespaces
By: ebiederm on Thu, 07 September 2006 19:50
|
 |
|
Re: Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
By: ebiederm on Wed, 06 September 2006 17:58
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
By: ebiederm on Tue, 05 September 2006 18:27
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
By: dev on Wed, 06 September 2006 14:52
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
By: dev on Tue, 05 September 2006 15:44
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
By: ebiederm on Tue, 05 September 2006 17:09
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: Re: [RFC] network namespaces
By: kir on Wed, 06 September 2006 15:09
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
By: ebiederm on Wed, 06 September 2006 20:40
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
By: ebiederm on Wed, 06 September 2006 23:25
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
By: ebiederm on Thu, 07 September 2006 05:11
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
|
 |
|
Re: [RFC] network namespaces
By: ebiederm on Sun, 10 September 2006 11:48
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Jul 23 05:15:39 GMT 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.11250 seconds
|