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.