On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 06:19:00PM +0300, Dmitry Mishin wrote:

On Sunday 03 December 2006 19:00, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

quoted

Ok.  Just a quick summary of where I see the discussion.

We all agree that L2 isolation is needed at some point.

As we all agreed on this, may be it is time to send patches
one-by-one? For the beggining, I propose to resend Cedric's 
empty namespace patch as base for others - it is really empty, 
but necessary in order to move further.

After this patch and the following net namespace unshare 
patch will be accepted, 

well, I have neither seen any performance tests showing
that the following is true:

 - no change on network performance without the 
   space enabled
 - no change on network performance on the host
   with the network namespaces enabled
 - no measureable overhead inside the network
   namespace 
 - good scaleability for a larger number of network
   namespaces 

I could send network devices virtualization patches for
review and discussion.

that won't hurt ...

best,
Herbert

What do you think?

quoted

The approaches discussed for L2 and L3 are sufficiently orthogonal
that we can implement then in either order.  You would need to
unshare L3 to unshare L2, but if we think of them as two separate
namespaces we are likely to be in better shape.

The L3 discussion still has the problem that there has not been
agreement on all of the semantics yet.

More comments after I get some sleep.

Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-- 
Thanks,
Dmitry.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers