On Apr 9, 2009, at 6:57 AM, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Quoting Elwin Stelzer Eliazer (stelzere@xxxxxxxxx): >> Hi, >> >> I am trying to use network namespace for virtualizing some socket >> applications i already have. >> These applications interact with Apache through 'lo' 127.0.0.1:nnn >> sockets >> now. >> When i virtualize, i do not want to run Apache inside the >> container, and has >> to be outside. >> I can not use any non-127.x.x.x IP address for this purpose, or >> have any >> separate "host-only" kind of internal network. >> I would appreciate if someone can let me know the options i have to >> accomplish this, with network namespace, and 2.6.29 or 2.6.30. > > So to be clear, what you want is to have an application in a separate > network namespace from apache, but talking over a shared loopback? > Yes. But I am not very specific about the loopback. > Can you use a veth tunnel pair? You don't have to tie them to a > bridge so the socket app won't be on the public net. > > -serge Yes I can do without the bridge. But what IP address for the veth? Can it be a 127.x.x.x? My solution cannot have a regular public or private ip that can interfere with external network. The reason I mentioned bridge was it will reduce the ip subnet needed to one. If you can suggest a solution that leverages 127.x.x.x it will be useful. Thanks, Elwin. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
