Thanks Fajar and Guido. The use case for this is that I don’t want to have double the no of IP and MACs for each interface I want on the nested container. I want to be able to bypass the networking (and bridge) on LXC so that I can use only one IP and MAC for any eth interface (I don’t need connectivity on the base container)
Anjali On 3/11/15, 11:45 PM, "Guido Jäkel" <[email protected]> wrote: >Dear Fajar, > >Theoretical, for the root host it should be possible to "pull out" the >"fist container level end" of the vet's of for the nested containers to >the host by changing it's namespace, isn't it? > >But because this will need the "cooperation" of the host environment to >start a nested container from the first level container, which will >undermine the nesting szenario. > > >Dear Anjali, > >what's your usecase or aim to try such a way? > >Guido > > >On 11.03.2015 22:21, Anjali Kulkarni wrote: >> Sorry, I didn¹t phrase this correctly. >> What I meant is I ok to bypass the base container (don¹t need bridging >> connectivity to it), but just want to expose the host bridge to the >>nested >> container. >> >> Anjali >> >> On 3/11/15, 2:14 PM, "Fajar A. Nugraha" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:10 AM, Anjali Kulkarni <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> interested in knowing if one bridge on the host can be used to bridge >>>> the >>>> base container and the nested container within the base container? >>> >>> No. A network interface can't be both in the host and in the container >>> at the same time. > >_______________________________________________ >lxc-users mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users _______________________________________________ lxc-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users
