Thanks very much to all and sorry for the delay.
> The /etc/lxc/lxc-usernet file was designed to be flexible
> enough to one day support other types. It's just noone has done it
> because noone's needed it.
That very much answers my question to the point.
While you mentioned plain lxc
On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 06:46:06PM +0100, Ede Wolf wrote:
> Am 05.03.20 um 03:20 schrieb Serge E. Hallyn:
> > and you currently
> > need a privileged lxc-user-nic to setup network.
>
> Thanks, as that basically sums up my question, as this lxc-user nic only
> seems to work with a standard bridge.
On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 11:43 PM Ede Wolf wrote:
>
> Hello Andrey,
>
> thanks for getting back to me. The reason for unpriviledged containers
> is basically user id separation.
>
> I fancy the idea that each container has its own id (range) and the user
> ids are not being shared between
Am 05.03.20 um 03:20 schrieb Serge E. Hallyn:
and you currently
need a privileged lxc-user-nic to setup network.
Thanks, as that basically sums up my question, as this lxc-user nic only
seems to work with a standard bridge. Unless I am misinformed, which was
actually my hope. Or maybe there
Hello Andrey,
thanks for getting back to me. The reason for unpriviledged containers
is basically user id separation.
I fancy the idea that each container has its own id (range) and the user
ids are not being shared between containers (and the host).
So it is another level of isolation and
On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 11:37:32PM +0300, Andrey Repin wrote:
> Greetings, Ede Wolf!
>
> > So please let me rephrase my question: Is there any alternative to
> > standard bridging for running unprivileged lxc containers?
>
> Is there a use case for unprivileged LXC containers?
> I fail to see
Greetings, Ede Wolf!
> So please let me rephrase my question: Is there any alternative to
> standard bridging for running unprivileged lxc containers?
Is there a use case for unprivileged LXC containers?
I fail to see one, and I'm using LXC for five-or-so years. If you are using
bare LXC, you
Thanks for the heads up, I have missed to mention, that I have been
talking about simple LXC containers. Somehow implied it as default due
to the name of this list. Sorry for that.
So please let me rephrase my question: Is there any alternative to
standard bridging for running unprivileged
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 08:12:17PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On February 28, 2020 8:09:45 PM GMT+01:00, "Serge E. Hallyn"
> wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 02:34:25PM +0100, Ede Wolf wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> do we have any alternatives to classical bridging right now for
>
On February 28, 2020 8:09:45 PM GMT+01:00, "Serge E. Hallyn"
wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 02:34:25PM +0100, Ede Wolf wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> do we have any alternatives to classical bridging right now for
>connecting
>> (to) unprivileged containers? Like macvlan or ipvlan?
>>
>> If so, I may
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 02:34:25PM +0100, Ede Wolf wrote:
> Hello,
>
> do we have any alternatives to classical bridging right now for connecting
> (to) unprivileged containers? Like macvlan or ipvlan?
>
> If so, I may haved missed the documentation, otherwise, are there any plans
> to
On 2/28/20 5:34 AM, Ede Wolf wrote:
Hello,
do we have any alternatives to classical bridging right now for
connecting (to) unprivileged containers? Like macvlan or ipvlan?
If so, I may haved missed the documentation, otherwise, are there any
plans to incorporate those options? Or maybe
Hello,
do we have any alternatives to classical bridging right now for
connecting (to) unprivileged containers? Like macvlan or ipvlan?
If so, I may haved missed the documentation, otherwise, are there any
plans to incorporate those options? Or maybe there are sound reasons not
do at all?
13 matches
Mail list logo
