From owner-freebsd-net Wed Oct 23 15:20:12 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0D3837B40D for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:20:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sccrmhc03.attbi.com (sccrmhc03.attbi.com [204.127.202.63]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EB2B43E4A for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:20:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from InterJet.elischer.org ([12.232.206.8]) by sccrmhc03.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20021023222009.XDBZ16403.sccrmhc03.attbi.com@InterJet.elischer.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 22:20:09 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA37568; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:18:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:18:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer To: Marko Zec Cc: "J. 'LoneWolf' Mattsson" , freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: BSD network stack virtualization In-Reply-To: <3DAE98B4.4058023A@tel.fer.hr> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I'm very impressed. I do however have some questions. (I have not read the code yet, just the writeup) 1/ How do you cope with each machine expecting to have it's own loopback interface? Is it sufficient to make lo1 lo2 lo3 etc. and attache them to the appropriate VMs? 2/ How much would be gained (i.e. is it worth it) to combine this with jail? Can you combine them? (does it work?) Does it make sense? 3/ You implemented this in 4.x which means that we need to reimplement it in -current before it has any chance of being 'included'. Do you think that would be abig problem? 5/ Does inclusion of the virtualisation have any measurable effect on throughputs for systems that are NOT using virtualisation. In other words, does the non Virtualised code-path get much extra work? (doi you have numbers?) (i.e. does it cost much for the OTHER users if we incorporated this into FreeBSD?) 6/ I think that your ng_dummy node is cute.. can I commit it separatly? (after porting it to -current..) 7/ the vmware image is a great idea. 8/ can you elaborate on the following: * hiding of "foreign" filesystem mounts within chrooted virtual images 9/ how does VIPA differ from the JAIL address binding? 10/ could you use ng_eiface instead of if_ve? 11/ why was ng_bridge unsuitable for your use? 12/ can you elaborate on the following: # fix netgraph interface node naming # fix the bugs in base networking code (statistics in "native" bridging, additional logic for ng_bridge...) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message