Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
