From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: [patch 2/6] [Network namespace] Network device sharing by view Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:08:23 -0700 Message-ID: <44A068E7.6080403@candelatech.com> 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> <20060626183649.GB3368@MAIL.13thfloor.at> <44A05BFD.6030402@candelatech.com> <20060626225440.GA7425@MAIL.13thfloor.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , Daniel Lezcano , Andrey Savochkin , 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, devel@openvz.org, sam@vilain.net, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, Alexey Kuznetsov Return-path: Received: from ns2.lanforge.com ([66.165.47.211]:48039 "EHLO ns2.lanforge.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933244AbWFZXJ3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:09:29 -0400 To: Herbert Poetzl In-Reply-To: <20060626225440.GA7425@MAIL.13thfloor.at> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Herbert Poetzl wrote: > On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 03:13:17PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > yes, that sounds good to me, any numbers how that > affects networking in general (performance wise and > memory wise, i.e. caches and hashes) ... I'll run some tests later today. Based on my previous tests, I don't remember any significant overhead. >>Using the mac-vlan and source-based routing tables, I can give a >>unique 'interface' to each process and have each process able to bind >>to the same IP port, for instance. Using source-based routing (by >>binding to a local IP explicitly and adding a route table for that >>source IP), I can give unique default routes to each interface as >>well. Since we cannot have more than 256 routing tables, this approach >>is currently limitted to around 250 virtual interfaces, but that is >>still a substantial amount. > > > an typically that would be sufficient IMHO, but > of course, a more 'general' hash tag would be > better in the long run ... I'm willing to offer a bounty (hardware, beer, money, ...) if someone will 'fix' this so we can have 1000 or more routes.... Being able to select these routes at a more global level (without having to specifically bind to a local IP would be nice as well.) Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com