Messages in this thread | | | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Subject | Re: [patch 2/6] [Network namespace] Network device sharing by view | Date | Mon, 26 Jun 2006 10:40:59 -0600 |
| |
Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@fr.ibm.com> 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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |