On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 06:19:00PM +0300, Dmitry Mishin wrote: > 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, well, I have neither seen any performance tests showing that the following is true: - no change on network performance without the space enabled - no change on network performance on the host with the network namespaces enabled - no measureable overhead inside the network namespace - good scaleability for a larger number of network namespaces > I could send network devices virtualization patches for > review and discussion. that won't hurt ... best, Herbert > 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. > _______________________________________________ > Containers mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers - 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
