Re: [patch 2/6] [Network namespace] Network device sharing by view

[Daniel Lezcano]

Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 05:49:41PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
>
> I think I understand what you're talking about: you want to make routing
> responsible for determining destination namespace ID in addition to route
> type (local, unicast etc), nexthop information, and so on.  Right?

Yes.

> My point is that if you make namespace tagging at routing time, and
> your packets are being routed only once, you lose the ability
> to have separate routing tables in each namespace.

Right. What is the advantage of having separate the routing tables ?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/