2012-06-12 23:35, Darren Reed wrote:
the important point to note is that currently
a networking stack cannot exist without a zone.
If I read what you're proposing above then aside from the global
zone, what you want to do is take the network instance away from
being part of the zone and instead assign them to a zone with the
restriction of a zone only being allowed to have a single network
instance assigned to it at any one time.
That would continue to support exclusive instance zones where
zone creation would also result in a networking instance being
created for that zone.
> The difference to what exists today is that
it would be possible to create a network instance and share that
amongst a number of zones.
Have I understood you right?
Yes, I guess so - the idea evolved to this :)
So it breaks the equivalence between creation of a zone
and creation of a networking instance. Now these two OS
objects can be created and destroyed somewhat separately
(though, I think, it would be wrong to yank a networking
instance from working zones).
BTW, is "IP stack" an equivalent term, or a subset of
"networking instance", or just a layman's short wrong
wording? ;)
If so then that rather dramatically changes the scope of work from
what I think most people were thinking of and that is being able
to use a zone as a "network master" for a number of other zones
(call them slaves for now) where the slave shares one master's
networking instance.
That is an interesting concept, I guess, but it does bring
up your question - upon reboot of a zone which masters the
networking instances, what do we do with its slaves?
The answer comes to mind automatically when the GZ is the
only master ;)
//Jim
-------------------------------------------
illumos-discuss
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182180/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182180/21175430-2e6923be
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21175430&id_secret=21175430-6a77cda4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
