| Home » Mailing lists » Devel » Re: [patch 2/6] [Network namespace] Network device sharing by view Goto Forum:
	| 
		
			| Re: [patch 2/6] [Network namespace] Network device sharing by view [message #4035] | Tue, 27 June 2006 09:38  |  
			| 
				
				
					|  Andrey Savochkin Messages: 47
 Registered: December 2005
 | Member |  |  |  
	| On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 11:34:36AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > 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 ?
 
 Routing is everything.
 For example, I want namespaces to have their private tunnel devices.
 It means that namespaces should be allowed have private routes of local type,
 private default routes, and so on...
 
 Andrey
 |  
	|  |  | 
 
 Current Time: Fri Oct 31 19:44:41 GMT 2025 
 Total time taken to generate the page: 0.11027 seconds |