On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Ivan Voras <ivo...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 30/01/2012 13:01, Ermal Luçi wrote: > >> Surely i know that this is not the best way to implement generically > > > ... probably, because it's similar to VNET... > It depends on the comparison. The same argument would hold true for multiple routing tables but still they coexist. Both usages have their scopes.
> >> What i would like to know is if there is interest to see such >> functionality in FreeBSD? >> >> I am asking first to see if there is some consensus about this as a >> feature, needed or not! >> If interest is shown i will transform the patch to allow: >> - ipfw(8) to manage the contextes create/destroy >> - ipfw(8) to manage interface membership. Closing the race of two >> parallell clients modifying different contextes. > > >> It is quite handy feature, which can be exploited even to scale on SMP >> machines by extending it to bind a specific instance(with its >> interaces) to a specific CPU/core?! > > > ... which is also done by VNET+JAILS. > > You should probably port it to VNET :) See above. Nevertheless, VNET is still not production use so.... > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" -- Ermal _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
