Re: [PATCH] Virtual ethernet tunnel

[Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@fr.ibm.com>]

Pavel Emelianov wrote:
>>> I did this at the very first version, but Alexey showed me that this
>>> would be wrong. Look. When we create the second device it must be in
>>> the other namespace as it is useless to have them in one namespace.
>>> But if we have the device in the other namespace the RTNL_NEWLINK
>>> message from kernel would come into this namespace thus confusing ip
>>> utility in the init namespace. Creating the device in the init ns and
>>> moving it into the new one is rather a complex task.
>>>   
>>>       
>> Pavel,
>>
>> moving the netdevice to another namespace is not a complex task. Eric
>> Biederman did it in its patchset ( cf.  http://lxc.sf.net/network )
>>     
>
> By saying complex I didn't mean that this is difficult to implement,
> but that it consists (must consist) of many stages. I.e. composite.
> Making the device right in the namespace is liter.
>
>   
>> When the pair device is created, both extremeties are into the init
>> namespace and you can choose to which namespace to move one extremity.
>>     
>
> I do not mind that.
>   
>> When the network namespace dies, the netdev is moved back to the init
>> namespace.
>> That facilitate network device management.
>>
>> Concerning netlink events, this is automatically generated when the
>> network device is moved through namespaces.
>>
>> IMHO, we should have the network device movement between namespaces in
>> order to be able to move a physical network device too (eg. you have 4
>> NIC and you want to create 3 containers and assign 3 NIC to each of them)
>>     
>
> Agree. Moving the devices is a must-have functionality.
>
> I do not mind making the pair in the init namespace and move the second
> one into the desired namespace. But if we *always* will have two ends in
> different namespaces what to complicate things for?
>   
Just to provide a netdev sufficiently generic to be used by people who 
don't want namespaces but just want to do some network testing, like Ben 
Greear does. He mentioned in a previous email, he will be happy to stop 
redirecting people to out of tree patch.

https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/containers/2007-April/004420.html

> Thanks,
> Pavel
>
>