WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Xen

xen-users

[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Xen-users] Managed Firewall

To: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Managed Firewall
From: Simon Hobson <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 2010年6月13日 13:31:35 +0100
Delivery-date: 2010年6月13日 05:33:13 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4C14C196.9010906@xxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <4C13C3A2.9000206@xxxxxxxxxxx> <p0624081dc83a4de8c3e1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4C14C196.9010906@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jonathan Tripathy wrote:
Since I have plans for up to nearly 100 VMs on the same machine, how well would Xen cope with 100 bridges?
No idea.
I also have another idea, so maybe you could tell me if it would work or not (Using physical firewall box): Let's say I have just one bridge per Xen host. Could I use iptabled/ebtables to deny all inter-VM traffic? So only allow access from the VM to the physical NIC of the box? Then on the physical switch, I could put each port on a separate VLAN, but put the port that the firewall is connected to on all the VLANs. Then, I assume, the switch would send all traffic from the host ports to the firewall port, where the firewall could do filtering? I'm not sure if the firewall would even need to be VM aware..
Well the firewall will not have to be VM aware anyway - it just sees traffic on VLAN ports. As to having one bridge and VLANs, if you connect multiple VLANs to one switch then that's the equivalent of trunking (bonding) multiple links together and won't help. The only other way round it I can see is to use some fudging with /32 subnets for the clients so that they have no concept of there being 'neighbours' on the local subnet (and then enforce it with iptable/ebtables rules to prevent direct host-host traffic) - but that's beyond my experience and I don't know how well it works or what pitfalls there may be.
--
Simon Hobson
Visit http://www.magpiesnestpublishing.co.uk/ for books by acclaimed
author Gladys Hobson. Novels - poetry - short stories - ideal as
Christmas stocking fillers. Some available as e-books.
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date: Re: [Xen-users] XCP Xen Cloud Control System schedule , George Shuklin
Next by Date: [Xen-users] Xen Client won't start after reboot , Wendy William
Previous by Thread: Re: [Xen-users] Managed Firewall , Jonathan Tripathy
Next by Thread: RE: [Xen-users] Managed Firewall , Dustin Henning
Indexes: [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]

Copyright ©, Citrix Systems Inc. All rights reserved. Legal and Privacy
Citrix This site is hosted by Citrix

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /