On Monday 19 February 2007 20:30, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > I will have look to *your* etun interface. But, PLEASE, look at the net > > namespace network patches (L2/L3) which were rfc'ed, posted several > > months ago. > > I have, and I have commented. > > > Unfortunatly, you didn't say that when Andrey sent it this summer and > > when Dmitry ported it to the namespaces and when it was integrated to lxc > > patchset by Cedric and when I put the L3 namespace on top of it. > > Mostly it is six of one half a dozen of the other as far as the actual > implementation is concerned. The practical difference is etun is not tied > in any way shape or form to namespaces, whereas veth appears to be. > > > Eric, opensource is about collaboration. > > Yes. Exactly. That is why I am suggesting that we try to use something > simpler than ioctl. > > The process is about collaborating to find the best technical solution > we can find in a timely manner. > > Currently the L2 stuff derived from OpenVZ appears to be completely > unmergable because of how the patchset is constructed. Please, explain. For me, your code is not mergeable as well. > > I am very frustrated that you are attacking me about not cooperating. > I have made comments (that were hopefully constructive) all along the > way. At some points in time I was busy so I could not look at things > in detail, but I have tried across the whole spectrum of the > namespaces effort. I finally sat down and wrote my own network > namespace implementation because some very important points were not > getting addressed and I had some novel ideas on how to solve some of > the problems. So I figured the contrast would be useful. The > containers list wasn't my primary audience of my RFC but I was > surprised that I received no comments there. > > Plus this is the biggest problem I see with the OpenVZ derived network > namespace effort is lack of cooperation with the people who matter. > The maintainers of the network stack. Sure people who are actually > going to use a network namespace have to agree that the code will > solve the problem in a usable way but if the maintainers of the > network stack don't like or can't be interested the code is never > going anywhere. Fully agree. But as I can see, your code arises no more comments, than ours. So, we need to find other ways. Do you have more ideas? -- Thanks, Dmitry. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers