From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Dichtel Subject: Re: Scaling the Number of Network Interfaces on Linux Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 16:12:45 +0100 Message-ID: <56BB536D.9040802@6wind.com> References: <56BB1BEB.5090200@6wind.com> <56BB2634.3080500@cumulusnetworks.com> Reply-To: nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: netdev To: David Ahern , Roopa Prabhu Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]:37794 "EHLO mail-wm0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752789AbcBJPMt (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:12:49 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-f48.google.com with SMTP id g62so30968413wme.0 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 07:12:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <56BB2634.3080500@cumulusnetworks.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le 10/02/2016 12:59, David Ahern a =C3=A9crit : > On 2/10/16 12:15 PM, Nicolas Dichtel wrote: [snip] >> Instead of removing completly the sysctl entries, another idea could= be to >> manage a group of interfaces which will share the same subtree. > > This come out from a side conversation as well -- for example to have= interfaces > enslaved to a bridge or bond share the same devconf. It could also be interesting to have another way to group interfaces. F= or example, group all ppp interfaces. > > This is certainly possible to do and I can give it a look. The key po= int is that > we clearly need a means to lighten the overhead of a network interfac= e. Yes, I agree.