[Devel] Re: [patch 2/6] [Network namespace] Network device sharing by view

[Ben Greear]

Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 02:37:15PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 
>>Herbert Poetzl <herbert at 13thfloor.at> writes:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 01:35:15PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>
>>>>Herbert Poetzl <herbert at 13thfloor.at> writes:
>>>
>>>yes, but you will not be able to apply policy on
>>>the parent, restricting the child networking in a
>>>proper way without jumping through hoops ...
>>
>>?  I don't understand where you are coming from.
>>There is no restriction on where you can apply policy.
> 
> 
> in a fully hierarchical system (not that I really think
> this is required here) you would be able to 'delegate'
> certain addresses (ranges) to a namespace (the child)
> below the current one (the parent) with the ability to
> limit/control the input/output (which is required for 
> security)
> 
> 
>>>>I really do not believe we have a hotpath issue, if this
>>>>is implemented properly. Benchmarks of course need to be taken,
>>>>to prove this.
>>>
>>>I'm fine with proper testing and good numbers here
>>>but until then, I can only consider it a prototype
>>
>>We are taking the first steps to get this all sorted out.
>>I think what we have is more than a prototype but less then
>>the final implementation.  Call it the very first draft version.
> 
> 
> what we are desperately missing here is a proper way
> to testing this, maybe the network folks can come up
> with some test equipment/ideas here ...
> 
> 
>>>>There are only two places a sane implementation should show issues.
>>>>- When the access to a pointer goes through a pointer to find
>>>>  that global variable.
>>>>- When doing a lookup in a hash table we need to look at an additional
>>>>  field to verify a hash match.  Because having a completely separate
>>>>  hash table is likely too expensive.
>>>>
>>>>If that can be shown to really slow down packets on the hot path I am
>>>>willing to consider other possibilities. Until then I think we are on
>>>>path to the simplest and most powerful version of building a network
>>>>namespace usable by containers.
>>>
>>>keep in mind that you actually have three kinds
>>>of network traffic on a typical host/guest system:
>>>
>>> - traffic between unit and outside
>>>   - host traffic should be quite minimal
>>>   - guest traffic will be quite high
>>>
>>> - traffic between host and guest
>>>   probably minimal too (only for shared services)
>>>
>>> - traffic between guests
>>>   can be as high (or even higher) than the
>>>   outbound traffic, just think web guest and
>>>   database guest
>>
>>Interesting.
>>
>>
>>>>The routing between network namespaces does have the potential to be
>>>>more expensive than just a packet trivially coming off the wire into a
>>>>socket.
>>>
>>>IMHO the routing between network namespaces should
>>>not require more than the current local traffic
>>>does (i.e. you should be able to achieve loopback
>>>speed within an insignificant tolerance) and not
>>>nearly the time required for on-wire stuff ...
>>
>>That assumes on the wire stuff is noticeably slower.
>>You can achieve over 1GB/s on some networks.
> 
> 
> well, have you ever tried how much you can achieve
> over loopback :)
> 
> 
>>But I agree that the cost should resemble the current
>>loopback device.  I have seen nothing that suggests
>>it is not.
>>
>>
>>>>However that is fundamentally from a lack of hardware. If the
>>>>rest works smarter filters in the drivers should enable to remove the
>>>>cost.
>>>>
>>>>Basically it is just a matter of:
>>>>if (dest_mac == my_mac1) it is for device 1.
>>>>If (dest_mac == my_mac2) it is for device 2.
>>>>etc.
>>>
>>>hmm, so you plan on providing a different MAC for
>>>each guest? how should that be handled from the
>>>user PoV? you cannot simply make up MACs as you
>>>go, and, depending on the network card, operation
>>>in promisc mode might be slower than for a given
>>>set (maybe only one) MAC, no?

> well, local is fine, but you cannot utilize that 
> on-wire which basically means that you would have
> either to 'map' the MAC on transmission (to the
> real one) which would basically make the approach
> useless, or to use addresses which are fine within
> a certain range of routers ...
> 
> 
>>With that set it is just a matter of using a decent random
>>number generator.  The kernel already does this is some places.
> 
> 
> sure you can make up MACs, but you will never
> be able to use them 'outside' the box 

I do it all the time with my mac-vlan patch and it works fine..so
long as you pay minimal attention.  Just let the user specify the
MAC addr and they can manage the uniqueness as they wish....

Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com