[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Status update on 1.0
Re: Status update on 1.0
Thu, 21 Mar 2019 15:59:00 +0100
Kristofer Buffington <address@hidden> ezt írta
(időpont: 2019. márc. 21., Cs, 1:54):
> Woops, I meant to send this message to the list
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Kristofer Buffington <address@hidden>
> Date: Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 8:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Status update on 1.0
> To: Gábor Boskovits <address@hidden>
> I'm deep into this netlink/rtnetlink business currently. I'm trying to decide
> if it's better to use guile-ffi or if it's just easier to use bash scripts
> and iproute2. Then virtual network interfaces could map to specific
> containerized services, which is my objective. Long-term, the netlink and
> rtnetlink fii is the superior approach. But bash scripts could get us
> something hacky, but running quickly.
> My other curiosity is: would it make more sense for shepherd to generate
> virtual network namespaces when services spawn, or is that something the
> operating-system declaration should contain?
> I'd love to help. I'm on the verge of putting some code down now that the
> research is coalescing into a vision. If there's some guidance or suggestions
> or otherwise, please try to get me involved!
Ok, I will push my preliminary work on wip-netlink soon. It it a guile
ffi style binding, but currently I got only to the definitions of
structures mainly. Help is much appreciated.
> Kristofer Buffington
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 3:35 PM Gábor Boskovits <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Thompson, David <address@hidden> ezt írta (időpont: 2019.
>> márc. 15., P, 19:32):
>> > Quick tangent: My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I think that netlink API
>> > wrappers would put us one step closer to being able to implement
>> > useful network isolation in our container implementation (right now
>> > you only have loopback, not so fun), like what Docker can do. Just
>> > something to consider. :)
>> > - Dave
>> Yes, that is correct. This is exactly one of the reasons I considered this.
>> Best regards,
Re: Status update on 1.0, Gábor Boskovits, 2019/03/14
Re: Status update on 1.0, Ludovic Courtès, 2019/03/27
- Re: Status update on 1.0, znavko, 2019/03/27
- Re: Status update on 1.0, Danny Milosavljevic, 2019/03/27
- Re: Status update on 1.0, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz), 2019/03/27
- KMScon vs. AMD Radeon, Ludovic Courtès, 2019/03/29
- Re: KMScon vs. AMD Radeon, Mathieu Othacehe, 2019/03/29
- Re: KMScon vs. AMD Radeon, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz), 2019/03/29
- Re: KMScon vs. AMD Radeon, Mathieu Othacehe, 2019/03/30
- Re: KMScon vs. AMD Radeon, Pierre Neidhardt, 2019/03/30