[Devel] Re: [PATCH 0/6] netns: add linux-vrf features via network namespaces

[Daniel Lezcano]

Andreas B Aaen wrote:
> On Friday 31 October 2008 00:07, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> A global nsid breaks migration,
> Yes.
> 
>> it breaks nested containers,
> Yes.
> 
>> in general it  just hurts.
> No.
> 
>> So it is a bad choice for an interface. 
> Not necessarily. There is a reason why vrf is designed the way it is - and the 
> patches that I have worked with had a similar design.
> 
>> Personally if I have vrf I want to set up a test environment in a container
>> so I can isolate it from the rest of the system.   Allowing me to play with
>> the user space side of the functionality without  So these things are not
>> completely separate concerns.
> 
> Ok. Here is my use case.
> I need a to talk to 500 IPv4 networks with possible overlapping IP addresses. 
> The packages arrive on 500 VLANs. I want one process to listen to a port on 
> each of these networks. I don't want 500 processes that runs in each their 
> network namespace and then communicate with each other through e.g. unix 
> sockets. This just complicates the task.

Why don't you unshare 500 times in the same process ? In each namespace 
you create a socket control and the fd number is the identifier of your 
namespace.

>> So from a design point of view I see the following questions.
>> 1) How do we pin a network namespace to allow for routing when no process
>> uses it?
> We introduce a global namespace or at least a namespace that unique for a 
> process and it's sons.
> Maybe a vrf container of network namespaces.
> The vrf container numbers it's network namespaces. Each pid points to a vrf 
> container. New vrf containers can be made through e.g. unshare(). Migration 
> and nesting should be possible.
> 
>> 2) How do we create sockets into that pinned network namespace? 
> Add a socket option that uses an index (global namespace)
> 
>> 3) How do we enter that network namespace so that sockets by default are
>> created in it?
> I don't need this feature. The VRF patchset does this, so they can implement a 
> chvrf utillity.
> 
>> All of these are technically easy things to implement and design wise a
>> challenge.
> Yes.
> 
> As I see it network namespaces has provided the splitting of all the protocols 
> in the network code. This was the huge task. The vrf patches that I have seen 
> a few years back wasn't as mature as this. What's left is actually the 
> management of these network namespaces. 
> 
> binding network namespaces to processes isn't a good idea for all use cases.  
> 
>> The best solution I see at the moment is to have something (a fs) we can
>> mount in the filesystem, keeping the network namespace alive as long as it
>> is mounted.
>>
>> i.e
>> mount -t netns none /dev/nets/1
>> mount -t netns -o newinstance none /dev/nets/2
>>
>> (The new instance parameter creates the network namespace as well as
>> capturing the current one)
>>
>> char netns[] = "/dev/nets/2"
>> fd = socket();
>> err = setsockopt(fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_NETPATH, netns, strlen(netns) + 1);
> 
> So the idea here is to let the userspace side choose the naming and ensuring 
> the nesting possibility by using the filesystem.
> 
> Would you configure this interface on "/dev/nets/2" like this:
> 
> ip addr add 10.0.0.1/24 dev eth1 nets "/dev/nets/2" ?
> 
> Where the "/dev/nets/2" parameter is set through a SO_NETPATH option to the 
> netlink socket that the iproute2 uses in it's implementation.
> 
> Is this better or worse than a vrf container with numbered network namespaces 
> in?
> 
> Regards,


-- 






















































Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:
Compagnie IBM France
Siège Social : Tour Descartes, 2, avenue Gambetta, La Défense 5, 92400
Courbevoie
RCS Nanterre 552 118 465
Forme Sociale : S.A.S.
Capital Social : 542.737.118 ?
SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 02430
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers