Cedric Le Goater <[email protected]> writes:
> How that proposal differs from the initial Daniel's patchset ? how far was
> that patchset to reach a similar agreement ?
My impression is as follows. The OpenVz implementation and mine work
on the same basic principles of handling the network stack at layer 2.
We have our implementation differences but the core ideas are about the
same.
Daniels patch still had elements of layer 3 handling as I recall
and that has problems.
> OK, i wear blue socks :), but I'm not advocating a patchset more than
> another i'm just looking for a shorter path.
Besides laying the foundations. The current conversation seems to be
about understanding the implications of the network stack when
we implement a network namespace.
There is a lot to the networking stack so it takes a while.
In addition this is one part of the problem that everyone has implemented,
so we have several more opinions on how it should be done and what
needs to happen.
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]
