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

Daniel Lezcano [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

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.

Is this an implementation difference or is this a user visible difference?
As an implementation difference this is sensible, as it is pretty insane
to allocate hash tables at run time.

As a user visible difference that affects semantics of the operations
this is not something we want to do.

Eric