[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B1427ED.6070808@candelatech.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:15:41 -0800
From: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...et.ca>
CC: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: net 00/05: routing based send-to-self implementation
On 11/30/2009 12:04 PM, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:37:31AM -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
>> This doesn't work if you want to have one application manage lots of
>> interfaces and send traffic between these interfaces. Certainly there are
>> use-cases that can use multiple name-spaces, but it's nice to have the
>> option not to use them as well.
>
> Actually, it's quite doable from within one application. An application
> I recently adapted to make use of multiple network namespaces within a single
> process by way of pthreads and unshare(CLONE_NEWNET). The scheme I used
> is to just open the socket in a new namespace in a thread. Since the
> file descriptor table is still shared, it's easy to send/receive data from
> any other thread, regardless of which virtual network namespace it's in.
> All told, setting up virtual routers with namespaces is pretty easy.
That still sounds more complicated than the proposed routing table changes,
at least for my application. Since I also want to gather stats, set/watch routes,
etc, on each network device, would I have to keep a thread and netlink socket
running in each name-space in order to see the various devices?
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists