Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > The last one in your diagram confuses me - why foo0:1? I would > have thought it'd be
just thinking aloud. I thought that any kind/type of interface could be mapped from host to guest. > host | guest 0 | guest 1 | guest2 > ----------------------+-----------+-----------+-------------- > | | | | > |-> l0 <-------+-> lo0 ... | lo0 | lo0 > | | | | > |-> eth0 | | | > | | | | > |-> veth0 <--------+-> eth0 | | > | | | | > |-> veth1 <--------+-----------+-----------+-> eth0 > | | | | > |-> veth2 <-------+-----------+-> eth0 | > > I think we should avoid using device aliases, as trying to do > something like giving eth0:1 to guest1 and eth0:2 to guest2 > while hiding eth0:1 from guest2 requires some uglier code (as > I recall) than working with full devices. In other words, > if a namespace can see eth0, and eth0:2 exists, it should always > see eth0:2. > > So conceptually using a full virtual net device per container > certainly seems cleaner to me, and it seems like it should be > simpler by way of statistics gathering etc, but are there actually > any real gains? Or is the support for multiple IPs per device > actually enough? > > Herbert, is this basically how ngnet is supposed to work? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
