From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [patch 2/6] [Network namespace] Network device sharing by view Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 10:40:59 -0600 Message-ID: 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: 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, herbert@13thfloor.at, devel@openvz.org, sam@vilain.net, ebiederm@xmission.com, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, Alexey Kuznetsov Return-path: Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:25999 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750770AbWFZQmQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:42:16 -0400 To: Daniel Lezcano In-Reply-To: <44A00215.2040608@fr.ibm.com> (Daniel Lezcano's message of "Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:49:41 +0200") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Daniel Lezcano writes: >> Then you lose the ability for each namespace to have its own routing entries. >> Which implies that you'll have difficulties with devices that should exist >> and be visible in one namespace only (like tunnels), as they require IP >> addresses and route. > > I mean instead of having the route tables private to the namespace, the routes > have the information to which namespace they are associated. Is this an implementation difference or is this a user visible difference? As an implementation difference this is sensible, as it is pretty insane to allocate hash tables at run time. As a user visible difference that affects semantics of the operations this is not something we want to do. Eric