Community discussions

MUM Europe 2020
 
User avatar
ufm
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:02 pm
Location: Ukraine

feature request: network namespaces support

Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:13 pm

Do you plan to support namespaces? This feature of new linux kernels allow build "virtual routers" without "hardware virtualisation" on any hardware.
 
bbs2web
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:25 pm
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Contact:

Re: feature request: network namespaces support

Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:27 am

Network namespaces support would additionally provide the ability of being able to construct two active/backup bond interfaces using only two network interfaces. This is useful in scenarios where 10Gbps switches do not have a high speed backbone and where inter-stack traffic becomes the bottleneck. This would enable one to, for example, run storage replication traffic on one switch via bond1 whilst keeping virtual machine traffic on the other switch via bond0. Either interface could however fail and traffic would subsequently be combined on the remaining port.

Herewith the steps on how to get this done in openvswitch:
# ovs-vsctl add-br br0
# ovs-vsctl add-br br0
# ovs-vsctl add-bond br0 bond0 eth2 veth00 -- set port bond0 bond_mode=active-backup -- set interface veth00 type=patch options:peer=veth01
# ovs-vsctl add-bond br1 bond1 eth3 veth10 -- set port bond1 bond_mode=active-backup -- set interface veth10 type=patch options:peer=veth11
# ovs-vsctl add-port br0 veth11 -- set interface veth11 type=patch options:peer=veth10
# ovs-vsctl add-port br1 veth01 -- set interface veth01 type=patch options:peer=veth00
# ovs-appctl bond/set-active-slave bond0 eth2
# ovs-appctl bond/set-active-slave bond1 eth3

Linux namespaces would probably also provide better isolation than the current Mikrotik VRF implementation although I'm not 100% sure myself. The current VRF implementation in RouterOS utilises separate routing tables but the link local table is always consulted so assigning an IP to another interface would result in the router processing packets when they are destined to that IP, even when the interface routing the traffic is in an isolated VRF routing table.
 
User avatar
mrz
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 5950
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:45 pm
Location: Latvia
Contact:

Re: feature request: network namespaces support

Wed Dec 14, 2016 6:13 pm

Namespaces could be used as a base for VRFs in ROSv7, but is not 100% decided yet.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 69 guests