On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote: > If that use case exists I believe it is an abuse. Soft devices that are > by definition in upper-lower relationships with other devices should not > move to other namespaces. Prevents all kinds of issues. If you need a > soft device like bridge of bond within a namespace, just create it there. >
I can't agree. Dan's use case is pretty valid, lower devices are moved into a netns before enslaving to the bonding device, it is perfect valid. NETIF_F_NETNS_LOCAL was introduced for loopback which is created during netns creation, forcing users to create a bond device in each netns is not friendly. What issues are you talking about there? Can't we just fix them?
