On 2/10/16 12:15 PM, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
to follow your talk at nedev11, I already proposed some times ago a patch to remove sysctl, which was rejected. You can see the thread here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/285840
Thanks for the reference. I'll take a look.
Instead of removing completly the sysctl entries, another idea could be to manage a group of interfaces which will share the same subtree.
This come out from a side conversation as well -- for example to have interfaces enslaved to a bridge or bond share the same devconf.
This is certainly possible to do and I can give it a look. The key point is that we clearly need a means to lighten the overhead of a network interface.
David
