Quoting Elwin Stelzer Eliazer (stelzere@xxxxxxxxx): > > 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. Actually is there any reason you can't use a unix socket? -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
