[Lxc-users] updated lxc template for debian squeeze - with attachedscript ; )

[Brian K. White]

Not at all, this is good info.

It's not an old thread as long as the proposed task hasn't been done 
yet, and it hasn't.

I still need to finish researching what exactly we should get, and then how.

-- 
bkw

On 4/23/2011 3:25 AM, Geordy Korte wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Sorry to revive an old thread but I would like to share some information
> with you that might give you an insight into why an OUI is advisable.
>
> I work for IBM as a Technical Pre-Sales consultant for Blade network
> technologies (what a mouth full). BNT creates switches that are very
> very good but that is not the point. One of the features that we have is
> VMready which basically means that when the switch detects a Virtualized
> uplink to a server it will analyse the traffic and create PORTS for
> every virtual host running on that server. This tech allows you to
> create policy for that port with which you can set QOS, ACL and anything
> else you would like. Now Vmready is fully vmotion enabled so that when
> you migrate a virtualhost to another server, the policy moves with it.
>
> The reason for me writing this to the list is that Vmready works for
> Hypervisor, vmware, kvm, powervm...  and it only works because of the
> mac address. Each switch has a database of Macs that belong to a
> virtualization product and by matching passing traffic to the list
> Vmready works. Should LXC get it's own block then I can make sure it's
> added to the Vmready database.
>
> Sorry if this sounds like a sales pitch... it's not meant too.
>
> Geordy Korte
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Brian K. White <brian at aljex.com
> <mailto:brian at aljex.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 3/11/2011 10:14 AM, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
>      > On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 19:09 +0000, Walter Stanish wrote:
>      >>>>> ...  I have read up on the OUI documentation and
>      >>>>> looking at the detail on the site LXC could opt for a 32bit
>     OUI which would
>      >>>>> cost $600 for one block. The dev guys might want to setup a
>     pledge program...
>      >>
>      >>>> I will pay for it.
>      >>
>      >>> I too am willing to pay the whole thing, so, halvsies? Or see
>     how many
>      >>> others want to split even?
>      >
>      >> Sounds good.  I guess we can nominate you as the finance go-to
>     on this
>      >> one then :)
>      >
>      >> Let us know details when they emerge.
>      >
>      > Can someone explain to me why we can't simply use a block of
>     addresses
>      > with the 0200 (local administration) bit or'ed in.  Out of 48 bits of
>      > addressing, we can use 46 bits of them for anything we want as
>     long as
>      > that bit is set and the 0100 bit (multicast) is clear.  By the
>     standard,
>      > those are locally managed and allocated MAC addresses that are not
>      > guaranteed to be globally unique.  They don't even need to be
>     unique in
>      > an entire network, only on the local subnet.  Use any convention you
>      > want.  Stuff the 32 bit IP address of the host in the lower 32
>     bits and
>      > you've still got 14 bits worth of assignable addressing per host.
>      > That's what that bit is intended for.
>
>     That is exactly what I do myself.
>
>     I'm not sure there is a specific need for a recognizable lxc address
>     space, but exactly the same thing could be said about xen and for some
>     reason they have one. I don't claim it's necessary I just claim three
>     things:
>
>     1) It wouldn't hurt.
>
>     2) It's cheap enough in both cash and time not to matter, more than
>     enough volunteers have already presented themselves.
>
>     3) I don't presume that because I don't perceive a reason, that no
>     reason exists.
>
>     One scenario I envision off-hand would be that automated vmware tools
>     and xen tools and lxc tools could each provision addresses from their
>     own spaces and guaranteed never step on each others toes.
>
>     --
>     bkw
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Colocation vs. Managed Hosting
>     A question and answer guide to determining the best fit
>     for your organization - today and in the future.
>     http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d
>     _______________________________________________
>     Lxc-users mailing list
>     Lxc-users at lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:Lxc-users at lists.sourceforge.net>
>     https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-users
>
>
>
>
> --
> ==============
> Geordy Korte
> MSN geordy at geordy.nl <mailto:geordy at geordy.nl>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Fulfilling the Lean Software Promise
> Lean software platforms are now widely adopted and the benefits have been
> demonstrated beyond question. Learn why your peers are replacing JEE
> containers with lightweight application servers - and what you can gain
> from the move. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfemails
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lxc-users mailing list
> Lxc-users at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-users