[Devel] Re: container-to-host virtual or loopback kind of interface support

[Elwin Stelzer Eliazer]

On Apr 9, 2009, at 6:57 AM, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue at us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Quoting Elwin Stelzer Eliazer (stelzere at gmail.com):
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am trying to use network namespace for virtualizing some socket
>> applications i already have.
>> These applications interact with Apache through 'lo' 127.0.0.1:nnn  
>> sockets
>> now.
>> When i virtualize, i do not want to run Apache inside the  
>> container, and has
>> to be outside.
>> I can not use any non-127.x.x.x IP address for this purpose, or  
>> have any
>> separate "host-only" kind of internal network.
>> I would appreciate if someone can let me know the options i have to
>> accomplish this, with network namespace, and 2.6.29 or 2.6.30.
>
> So to be clear, what you want is to have an application in a separate
> network namespace from apache, but talking over a shared loopback?
>

Yes. But I am not very specific about the loopback.

> Can you use a veth tunnel pair?  You don't have to tie them to a
> bridge so the socket app won't be on the public net.
>
> -serge

Yes I can do without the bridge. But what IP address for the veth? Can  
it be a 127.x.x.x? My solution cannot have a regular public or private  
ip that can interfere with external network. The reason I mentioned  
bridge was it will reduce the ip subnet needed to one. If you can  
suggest a solution that leverages 127.x.x.x it will be useful.

Thanks,
Elwin.

_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers