From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steffen Klassert Subject: Re: Namespaces and inetpeer Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:57:56 +0100 Message-ID: <20120312085756.GL15404@secunet.com> References: <20120310132529.GA3631@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "David S. Miller" , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from a.mx.secunet.com ([195.81.216.161]:39336 "EHLO a.mx.secunet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752793Ab2CLI57 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2012 04:57:59 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120310132529.GA3631@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:25:29AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > Hi: > > While looking through the inetpeer code I noticed that there is > no namespace support at all. This means that metric and other > information will be leaking across namespaces. As IP addresses > are meant to be independent between them, this is not a good thing. > Actually, it would be nice if we could have an inetpeer base per fib table. This would imply namespace awareness and it would handle the problem when we have mulitiple routes (with different metrics etc.) to the same ip address on policy routing.