>> I did this at the very first version, but Alexey showed me that this >> would be wrong. Look. When we create the second device it must be in >> the other namespace as it is useless to have them in one namespace. >> But if we have the device in the other namespace the RTNL_NEWLINK >> message from kernel would come into this namespace thus confusing ip >> utility in the init namespace. Creating the device in the init ns and >> moving it into the new one is rather a complex task. >> > Pavel, > > moving the netdevice to another namespace is not a complex task. Eric > Biederman did it in its patchset ( cf. http://lxc.sf.net/network )
By saying complex I didn't mean that this is difficult to implement, but that it consists (must consist) of many stages. I.e. composite. Making the device right in the namespace is liter. > When the pair device is created, both extremeties are into the init > namespace and you can choose to which namespace to move one extremity. I do not mind that. > When the network namespace dies, the netdev is moved back to the init > namespace. > That facilitate network device management. > > Concerning netlink events, this is automatically generated when the > network device is moved through namespaces. > > IMHO, we should have the network device movement between namespaces in > order to be able to move a physical network device too (eg. you have 4 > NIC and you want to create 3 containers and assign 3 NIC to each of them) Agree. Moving the devices is a must-have functionality. I do not mind making the pair in the init namespace and move the second one into the desired namespace. But if we *always* will have two ends in different namespaces what to complicate things for? Thanks, Pavel - 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
