On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 10:19:23AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > >>On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 05:52:52AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> > >>>Inside the containers I want all network devices named eth0! > >> > >>huh? even if there are two of them? also tun? > >> > >>I think you meant, you want to be able to have eth0 in > >>_more_ than one guest where eth0 in a guest can also > >>be/use/relate to eth1 on the host, right? > > > > > >Right I want to have an eth0 in each guest where eth0 is > >it's own network device and need have no relationship to > >eth0 on the host. > > How does that help anything? Do you envision programs > that make special decisions on whether the interface is > called eth0 v/s eth151?
well, those poor folks who do not have ethernet devices for networking :) seriously, what I think Eric meant was that it might be nice (especially for migration purposes) to keep the device namespace completely virtualized and not just isolated ... I'm fine with that, as long as it does not add overhead or complicate handling, and as far as I can tell, it should not do that ... best, Herbert > Ben > > > -- > Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com - 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
