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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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 ?
it is impossible to have bridged networking, tun/tap and many other features without it. I even doubt that it is possible to introduce private netfilter rules w/o virtualization of routing.

The question is do we want to have fully featured namespaces which allow to create isolated virtual environments with semantics and behaviour of standalone linux box or do we want to introduce some hacks with new rules/restrictions to meet ones goals only?

From my POV, fully virtualized namespaces are the future. It is what makes virtualization solution usable (w/o apps modifications), provides all the features and doesn't require much efforts from people to be used.

Thanks,
Kirill
-
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]
  Powered by Linux