[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150111145508.GB3999@openwall.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 17:55:08 +0300
From: croco@...nwall.com
To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: [owl-users] Owl 3.1-stable
Colleagues,
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 10:35:47AM +0300, gremlin@...mlin.ru wrote:
>
> We could do exactly the opposite: make Owl smaller.
>
> That means, out-of-a-box it could be just a virtualization host
> (VPS+VDS) with SSH access and build system, and other packages
> could be installed (yes, I'd write this word here) from several
> repositories.
let me second this. Owl with its minimalistic ideology can be of a certain
value in the role of a hardware node that runs all the services inside VZ
containters.
BTW, in most situations there's only one ip address, and it takes some
effort to setup such system, with OpenVZ containter and static NAT for
public ports. We can perhaps add value to the out-of-a-box system if we
automatize this kind of setup, may be with another module added to our
'setup' utility: it could ask the user which private subnet (s)he wants to
use, e.g., 10.177.178.0/24, then let the user create OpenVZ containers,
assign them addresses (both from the private range and outside of it, in
case there are more than 1 ip) and specify what external ports to forward,
and where, and whether should containers be able to access Internet on they
own (being NAT'ed via the main address of the system). Such module can
even be able to preserve the iptables' rules that fall outside of its
scope.
--
Croco
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
