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

On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 10:19:23AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Herbert Poetzl <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:


On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 05:52:52AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

Inside the containers I want all network devices named eth0!

huh? even if there are two of them? also tun?

I think you meant, you want to be able to have eth0 in
_more_ than one guest where eth0 in a guest can also
be/use/relate to eth1 on the host, right?


Right I want to have an eth0 in each guest where eth0 is
it's own network device and need have no relationship to
eth0 on the host.

How does that help anything? Do you envision programs
that make special decisions on whether the interface is
called eth0 v/s eth151?

well, those poor folks who do not have ethernet
devices for networking :)

seriously, what I think Eric meant was that it
might be nice (especially for migration purposes)
to keep the device namespace completely virtualized
and not just isolated ...

I'm fine with that, as long as it does not add
overhead or complicate handling, and as far as I
can tell, it should not do that ...

best,
Herbert

Ben


--
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
-
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/

Relevant Pages