Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 07:11:32PM CET, xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com wrote: >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.
I'm not saying it isn't... >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?
