On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 10:33:48PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Something to examine here is that if both network devices and sockets > are tagged does that still allow implicit network namespace passing.
I think avoiding implicit network namespace passing expresses more power/flexibility plus it would make things clearer to what container/namespace a given network resource belongs too. >From our experience with an implementation of network containers [Virtual Routing for ipv4/ipv6, with a complete isolation between containers where ip addresses can overlap...], there is some problem domain in which you cannot afford to duplicate a process/daemon in each container [a big process for instance, scalability w.r.t. number of containers etc] By having a proper namespace tag per socket, this can be solved by allowing a process running in the host context to create sockets in that namespace than moving them to the target guest namespaces [via a special setsockopt for instance or unix domain socket as you said]. Regards > > Eric > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
