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 [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]
