I am facing some routing issue with the local zone talking to outside network.
Here is the setup that I have:
Configured global zone (bge0) to 10.x.180.0 network
Configured local zone (bge1:1) to 10.x.230.0 network
local zone can talk to the systems in 10.x.230.0 network, but it cannot talk to
Hi Ramesh,
Ramesh Mudradi wrote On 05/11/07 02:54,:
I am facing some routing issue with the local zone talking to outside network.
Here is the setup that I have:
Configured global zone (bge0) to 10.x.180.0 network
Configured local zone (bge1:1) to 10.x.230.0 network
local zone can talk to
Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Dan Price wrote:
On Thu 10 May 2007 at 04:21PM, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
of the other controls is trickier although I think Dan's idea of scaling
these based on the system makes it easier. We might also want to think
about scaling based on the number of running zones.
Jeff Victor wrote:
With all of that, should default values be minima or maxima? The goal I
have in mind is default values that will protect a zone from DoS
attacks, or the equivalent symptom, caused by bad software.
Although we could assign default values to caps, they would be
arbitrary,
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 10:48:04AM -0600, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
The requirement for the RM defaults should be that a misbehaving
zone can't effectively bring down the whole system. You want to
be able to get on the global zone and clean up the misbehaving zone
and any other well behaved
Mads Toftum wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 10:48:04AM -0600, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
The requirement for the RM defaults should be that a misbehaving
zone can't effectively bring down the whole system. You want to
be able to get on the global zone and clean up the misbehaving zone
and any other
Mads Toftum wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 10:48:04AM -0600, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
The requirement for the RM defaults should be that a misbehaving
zone can't effectively bring down the whole system. You want to
be able to get on the global zone and clean up the misbehaving zone
and any other
Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Mads Toftum wrote:
If we implement Dan's idea of a percentage for some of the resource
controls we could have physical memory and swap caps default to something like
50%-75% of the system total. Again, well-behaved zones shouldn't get close
to this (if they do, the system
Jeff Victor wrote:
Wouldn't this lead to a waste of resources on systems with only one
non-global zone? It may not be the most common setup, but still makes a
lot of sense for a higher level of security.
No, since this is only a cap, not a partitioning of resources, so
everything
is still
All,
After installing a whole-root zone on my sparc server, the Solaris Managment
Console did not come with it, for some reason. Everything else is fine though.
Any idea how I can get the SMC working on my whole-root zone?
Thank you!
SB
This message posted from opensolaris.org
10 matches
Mail list logo
