From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Lezcano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Virtual ethernet tunnel Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:05:51 +0200 Message-ID: <466810BF.2090704@fr.ibm.com> References: <4666CEAA.8010903@openvz.org> <4666D296.2000002@trash.net> <4667BD1D.9080905@openvz.org> <4667D00E.2020605@fr.ibm.com> <4667D538.7040904@openvz.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Daniel Lezcano , Patrick McHardy , Linux Containers , Linux Netdev List , "Eric W. Biederman" , Kirill Korotaev To: Pavel Emelianov Return-path: Received: from mtagate7.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.140]:1718 "EHLO mtagate7.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754352AbXFGOGl (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jun 2007 10:06:41 -0400 Received: from d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.185]) by mtagate7.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l57E6eNu366476 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2007 14:06:40 GMT Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.216]) by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.3) with ESMTP id l57E6eN32986230 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2007 15:06:40 +0100 Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l57E6dmb013761 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2007 15:06:40 +0100 In-Reply-To: <4667D538.7040904@openvz.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org 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 > >