From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kristofer Buffington Subject: Fwd: Status update on 1.0 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:52:10 -0400 Message-ID: References: <871s3a4xd4.fsf@gnu.org> <87zhpw2ql4.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003bd54805849027b2" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:56841) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h6ly9-0000YW-Rn for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:54:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h6lwg-000854-JI for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:52:35 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-x434.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::434]:41655) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h6lwg-0007ye-0h for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:52:34 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-x434.google.com with SMTP id p1so4745068wrs.8 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 17:52:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: guix-devel@gnu.org --0000000000003bd54805849027b2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Woops, I meant to send this message to the list ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Kristofer Buffington Date: Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 8:51 PM Subject: Re: Status update on 1.0 To: G=C3=A1bor Boskovits 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! Kristofer Buffington On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 3:35 PM G=C3=A1bor Boskovits = wrote: > Hello, > > Thompson, David ezt =C3=ADrta (id=C5=91pont: 2= 019. > m=C3=A1rc. 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 thi= s. > > Best regards, > g_bor > > --0000000000003bd54805849027b2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Woops, I meant to send this message to the list
--------= -- Forwarded message ---------
From: Kristofer Buffington <kristoferbuffington@gmail.com>=
Date: Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: Status update on 1.0=
To: G=C3=A1bor Boskovits <bos= kovits@gmail.com>


I'm dee= p 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 somet= hing hacky, but running quickly.

My other curiosity is: w= ould 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, p= lease try to get me involved!

Kristofer Buffington

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 3:35 PM G=C3=A1bor Boskovits <boskovits@gmail.com> wrote= :
Hello,

Thompson, David <dthompson2@worcester.edu> ezt =C3=ADrta (id=C5=91pont: 2019.<= br> m=C3=A1rc. 15., P, 19:32):
>

> Quick tangent: My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I think that netlink API<= br> > 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,
g_bor

--0000000000003bd54805849027b2--