On Sunday 03 December 2006 19:00, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Ok. Just a quick summary of where I see the discussion. > > We all agree that L2 isolation is needed at some point. As we all agreed on this, may be it is time to send patches one-by-one? For the beggining, I propose to resend Cedric's empty namespace patch as base for others - it is really empty, but necessary in order to move further.
After this patch and the following net namespace unshare patch will be accepted, I could send network devices virtualization patches for review and discussion. What do you think? > > The approaches discussed for L2 and L3 are sufficiently orthogonal > that we can implement then in either order. You would need to > unshare L3 to unshare L2, but if we think of them as two separate > namespaces we are likely to be in better shape. > > The L3 discussion still has the problem that there has not been > agreement on all of the semantics yet. > > More comments after I get some sleep. > > 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 -- Thanks, Dmitry. - 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
