From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964862AbWF0Jer (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 05:34:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964858AbWF0Jer (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 05:34:47 -0400 Received: from mtagate4.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.153]:23311 "EHLO mtagate4.de.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964832AbWF0Jep (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 05:34:45 -0400 Message-ID: <44A0FBAC.7020107@fr.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 11:34:36 +0200 From: Daniel Lezcano User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrey Savochkin CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, serue@us.ibm.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, clg@fr.ibm.com, Andrew Morton , dev@sw.ru, herbert@13thfloor.at, devel@openvz.org, sam@vilain.net, ebiederm@xmission.com, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, Alexey Kuznetsov Subject: Re: [patch 2/6] [Network namespace] Network device sharing by view References: <20060609210202.215291000@localhost.localdomain> <20060609210625.144158000@localhost.localdomain> <20060626134711.A28729@castle.nmd.msu.ru> <449FF5A0.2000403@fr.ibm.com> <20060626192751.A989@castle.nmd.msu.ru> <44A00215.2040608@fr.ibm.com> <20060627131136.B13959@castle.nmd.msu.ru> In-Reply-To: <20060627131136.B13959@castle.nmd.msu.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrey Savochkin wrote: > Daniel, > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 05:49:41PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >>>Then you lose the ability for each namespace to have its own routing entries. >>>Which implies that you'll have difficulties with devices that should exist >>>and be visible in one namespace only (like tunnels), as they require IP >>>addresses and route. >> >>I mean instead of having the route tables private to the namespace, the >>routes have the information to which namespace they are associated. > > > I think I understand what you're talking about: you want to make routing > responsible for determining destination namespace ID in addition to route > type (local, unicast etc), nexthop information, and so on. Right? Yes. > > My point is that if you make namespace tagging at routing time, and > your packets are being routed only once, you lose the ability > to have separate routing tables in each namespace. Right. What is the advantage of having separate the routing tables ?