jamal wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 16:37 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> jamal wrote:
> 
>>> Agreed that this would be a main driver of such a feature.
>>> Which means that you need zones (or whatever noun other people use) to
>>> work on not just netfilter, but also routing, ipsec etc.
>> Routing already works fine. I believe IPsec should also work already,
>> but I haven't tried it.
> 
> maybe further discussion  would clarify this point..
> 
>> The zone is set based on some other criteria (in this case the
>> incoming device).
> 
> If you are using a netdev as a reference point, then I take it 
> if you add vlans should be possible to do multiple zones on a single
> physical netdev? Or is there some other way to satisfy that?

Yes, you can assign a zone to each netdev. macvlan will also work.

Using a netfilter target for the raw table might be a better choice
on second thought though, it provides more flexibility and avoids
the netfilter-specific device setting. I'll probably change that.

quoted text
>>  The packets make one pass through the stack
>> to a veth device and are SNATed in POSTROUTING to non-clashing
>> addresses. 
> 
> Ok - makes sense. 
> i.e NAT would work; and policy routing as well as arp would be fine.
> Also it looks to be sufficiently useful to fit a specific use case you
> are interested in.
> But back to my question on routing, ipsec etc (and you may not be
> interested in solving this problem, but it is what i was getting to
> earlier). Lets take for example: 
> a) network tables like SAD/SPD tables: how you would separate those on a
> per-zone basis? i.e 10.0.0.1/zone1 could use different
> policy/association than 10.0.0.1/zone2

The selectors include an ifindex, which could be used to
distinguish both based on the interface.

quoted text
> b) dynamic protocols (routing, IKE etc): how do you do that without 
> making both sides understand what is going on?

In case of IPsec the outer addresses are different, its only the
selectors which will have similar addresses. A keying deamon should
have no trouble with this. The ifindex would be needed in the
selectors though to make sure each policy is used for the correct
traffic.

A routing daemon is unrealistic to be used in this scenario, at
least a single one for all the overlapping networks.

quoted text
>>> This is a valid concern against the namespace approach. Existing tools
>>> of course could be taught to know about namespaces - and one could
>>> argue that if you can resolve the overlap IP address issue, then you
>>> _have to_ modify user space anyways.
>> I don't think thats true. 
> 
> Refer to my statements above for an example.
> 
>> In any case its completely impractical
>> to modify every userspace tool that does something with networking
>> and potentially make complex configuration changes to have all
>> those namespaces interact nicely. 
> 
> Agreed. But the major ones like iproute2 etc could be taught. We have
> namespaces in the kernel already, over a period of time I think changing
> the user space tools would a sensible evolution.

Yes, that might be useful in any case. But I don't think it would
even work for iproute or other standalone programs, a process can't
associate to an existing namespace except through clone(). So it
needs to run as child of a process already associated with the
namespace.

quoted text
>> Currently they are simply not
>> very well suited for virtualizing selected parts of networking.
> 
> My contention is that it is a lot less headache to just virtualize 
> all the network stack and then use what you want than it is to go and
> selectively changing the network objects.
> Note: if i wanted today i could run racoon on every namespace 
> unchanged and it would work or i could modify racoon to understand
> namespaces...

See above.

quoted text
>> I'm not sure whether there is a typical user for overlapping
>> networks :) I know of setups with ~150 overlapping networks.
>>
>> The number of conntracks per zone doesn't matter since the
>> table is shared between all zones. network namespaces would
>> allocate 150 tables, each of the same size, which might be
>> quite large.
> 
> Thats what i was looking for ..
> So the difference, to pick the 150 zones example so as to put a number
> around it, is namespaces will consume 150.X bytes (where X is the
> overhead of a conntrack table) and you approach will be (X + 152) bytes,
> correct?
> What is the typical sizeof X?

No, to give some correct number. Assuming a conntrack table of
10MB (large, but reasonable depending on the number of connections)
we get an overhead of:

namespaces: 150 * 10MB memory use
"zones": 152 bytes increased code size

Both approaches additionally need one extra connection tracking
entry of ~300 bytes per connection that is actually handled twice.

quoted text
>>> You may also wanna look as a metric at code complexity/maintainability
>>> of this scheme vs namespace (which adds zero changes to the kernel).
>> There's not a lot of complexity, its basically passing a numeric
>> identifier around in a few spots and comparing it. Something like
>> TOS handling in the routing code.
> 
> I think the challenge is whether zones will have to encroach on other
> net stack objects or not. You are already touching structure netdev...

That will go away once I add a target for classification. I completely
agree that its undesirable to add this in more spots, but this is meant
purely for being able to pass traffic through conntrack/NAT more than
once.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html