From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/6] [Network namespace] Network device sharing by view
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:12:52 -0700
Message-ID: <1151449973.24103.51.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20060626192751.A989@castle.nmd.msu.ru>
	 <44A00215.2040608@fr.ibm.com> <20060627131136.B13959@castle.nmd.msu.ru>
	 <44A0FBAC.7020107@fr.ibm.com> <20060627133849.E13959@castle.nmd.msu.ru>
	 <44A1149E.6060802@fr.ibm.com> <m1sllqn7cb.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
	 <20060627160241.GB28984@MAIL.13thfloor.at>
	 <m1psgulf4u.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
	 <44A1689B.7060809@candelatech.com>
	 <20060627225213.GB2612@MAIL.13thfloor.at>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@fr.ibm.com>,
	Andrey Savochkin <saw@swsoft.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	serue@us.ibm.com, clg@fr.ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	dev@sw.ru, devel@openvz.org, sam@vilain.net, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <alexey@sw.ru>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.143]:56034 "EHLO e3.ny.us.ibm.com")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932576AbWF0XNL (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:13:11 -0400
To: Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at>
In-Reply-To: <20060627225213.GB2612@MAIL.13thfloor.at>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 00:52 +0200, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> seriously, what I think Eric meant was that it
> might be nice (especially for migration purposes)
> to keep the device namespace completely virtualized
> and not just isolated ...

It might be nice, but it is probably unneeded for an initial
implementation.  In practice, a cluster doing
checkpoint/restart/migration will already have a system in place for
assigning unique IPs or other identifiers to each container.  It could
just as easily make sure to assign unique network device names to
containers.

The issues really only come into play when you have an unstructured set
of machines and you want to migrate between them without having prepared
them with any kind of unique net device names beforehand.

It may look weird, but do application really *need* to see eth0 rather
than eth858354?

-- Dave