[Freedombox-discuss] Program Space, a new lightweight virtualization technology

[Leen Besselink]

On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 01:15:53PM +0100, Leen Besselink wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 01:43:54PM +0100, Rob van der Hoeven wrote:
> > Hi Leen,
> > 
> > > Yes, that is how I understood it.
> > > 
> > > Your example used the model with bridged and DHCP-client in the container.
> > > 
> > > I wonder what would be the models which fit best for the Freedombox.
> > > 
> > 
> > My thoughts about this are: 
> > 
> > 1) Automatic configuration is good! Almost any potential FreedomBox user
> > is likely to have a DHCP server running on the network (on the router),
> > lets use this.
> > 2) Have two network interfaces, one for the local network and one for
> > the FreedomBox tasks. Put the FreedomBox interface in the DMZ of the
> > router (the router can do this based on the MAC of the FreedomBox
> > interface). The FreedomBox interface runs inside a Program Space
> > designed to forward traffic to other Program Spaces (NEVER to programs
> > running in User Space!). This is basically what I have been doing over
> > the last 3 years using LXC technology. 
> > 3) Leave existing networks alone, do not change them. For my current
> > FreedomBox setup the network must be changed to a bridged network. I do
> > not like this at all! Why? Because I know there is a better way, I just
> > do not know how its been done. I do a lot of testing inside VirtualBox
> > VM's. With VirtualBox you can have a bridged network without changing
> > the network of the host. How do they do it? Anyone having ideas about
> > this?
> > 
> 
> This is fine for now, I meant, what about all the networking ideas/projects around FreedomBox:
> 
> https://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox/ExampleProjects#Networking
> https://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox/MeshNetwork
> 
> My real question is: does the DHCP-client fit into that model ?
> 
> What if you have a very integrated FreedomBox where you only run 1 webserver and multiple
> application containers for different applications (maybe even static files mapped directly
> on the webserver to a directory from the webserver). In that case you want it to be some what
> static and not directly connected to the LAN or WAN.
> 

I obviously wanted to say:

What if you have a very integrated FreedomBox where you only run 1 webserver and multiple
application containers for different applications (maybe even static files mapped directly
on the webserver to a directory of the container). In that case you want the IP-address
configuration to be some what static and not directly connected to the LAN or WAN.

> Not that this is a real problem for Program Space, it can handle that just fine. :-)
> 
> I'm just wondering if people have a plan.
> 
> > Happy new year everyone! 
> > Rob.
> > http://freedomboxblog.nl
> > 
> 
> PS Seems the Docker folks are adding an in-container process too now:
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/docker-dev/m-d3A7bxD70
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Freedombox-discuss mailing list
> Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss