Re: [PATCH 7/8] net: Allow setting the network namespace by fd

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 09:32:53AM -0400, jamal wrote:

On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 14:57 +0200, David Lamparter wrote:

quoted

No. While you sure could associate routes with devices, they don't
*functionally* reside on top of network devices. They reside on top of
the entire IP configuration, 

I think i am not clearly making my point. There are data dependencies;
If you were to move routes, youd need everything that routes depend on.
IOW, if i was to draw a functional graph, routes would appear on top
of netdevs (I dont care what other functional blocks you put in between
or sideways to them).

I understood your point. What I'm saying is that that functional graph
you're describing is too simplistic do be a workable model. Your graph
allows for what you're trying to do, yes. But your graph is not modeling
the reality.

quoted

The routes depend on your BGP view, and
if your set of interfaces (and peers) changes, your routes will change.
Your bgpd will, either way, need to set up new peerings and redo best
path evaluations.

Worst case scenario, yes. I am beginning to get a feeling we are trying 
to achieve different goals maybe? Why are you even migrating netdevs?

Err... I'm migrating netdevs to assign them to namespaces to allow them
to use them? Setup, basically. Either way a device move only happens as
result of some administrative action; be it creating a new namespace or
changing the physical/logical network setup.

quoted

(On an unrelated note, how often are you planning to move stuff between
namespaces? I don't expect to be moving stuff except on configuration
events...)

Triggering on config events is useful and it is likely the only
possibility if you assumed the other namespace is remote.

wtf is a "remote" namespace?

                                                          But if could
send a single command to migrate several things in the kernel (in my
case to recover state to a different ns), then that is much simpler and
uses the least resources (memory, cpu, bandwidth). I admit it is very
hard to do in most cases where the underlying dependencies are evolving
and synchronizing via user space is the best approach. The example
of route table i pointed to is simple.
Besides that: dynamic state created in the kernel that doesnt have to be
recreated by the next arriving 100K packets helps to improve recovery.

Can you please describe your application that requires moving possibly
several network devices together with "their" routes to a different
namespace?


-David