From: Thomas Gelf (vserver_at_gelf.net)
Date: Fri 27 Feb 2004 - 08:03:09 GMT
I believe that limiting the number of possible ip addresses is
definitively the wrong way:
- most vservers need only one ip address
- if you start hosting many ssl sites on a single vserver even 200
or more ip addresses will not be enough
- Christian proposed using an ip/wildcard combination to limit
addresses. this seems unusable to me as from my experience your
provider over the years will assign you many different small
subnets - at least if you depend on RIPE
- i believe that with IPv6 ssl-based webhosting and ip-based vhosts
will increase dramatically - so 16, 32 or even 64 ip addresses per
vserver will be useless
vserver still needs better networking support - and in my eyes at the
moment the best solution will be:
- one TUN/TAP Device per vserver, bridging them to eth0 (like UML, see
"TUN/TAP with a preconfigured tap device"
- the possibility to define the name of the interface as it will be
visible inside the vserver
- the possibility to add more than one interface to one vserver, as
adding many bridges to a real host is also no problem
- context-based routing support
- virtual loopback devices
- per-context netfilter... - full networking support!
is it possible to realize this?
how much work would it be?
the first part (tun/tap interface == virtual eth0 inside the vserver,
bridge them to real eth0, allow CAP_NET_ADMIN for the visible interfaces
only) should be no problem, what about per-context routing/firewalling?
Am Fre, den 27.02.2004 schrieb Kevin Gray um 01:15:
> After discussions on the irc channel, Herbert thought it might be a good
> idea to get some feedback on the following question. Any input is
> How many ip addresses should be sufficient for a single vserver?
> If you think more than a few (more than 16 for example), would it be
> more useful/appropriate given your setup to use ranges of ips or enter
> them one by one?
> Just for my feedback to start:
> We normally use one ip address per vserver, but for some of our hosting
> services, we have 32 customers in a single vserver. The reason being,
> less individual services (overhead), more customers on a server, etc.
> The number 32 is used because of the limitation of adding secondary
> members to a group in reference to permissions. Instead of changing this
> in the kernel (if possible), we decided to increase the limitation in
> vserver tools/patch to allow more than 16 ip addresses. We do not use
> ranges only for the reason that other than the hassle of obtaining
> additional subnets, our existing free ips are not in blocks, but
> randomly throughout..
> Kevin Gray
> Sr. Network Administrator
> Vserver mailing list
-- Thomas Gelf <vserver_at_gelf.net>
_______________________________________________ Vserver mailing list Vserver_at_list.linux-vserver.org http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver