Subject: Re: Namespaces and inetpeer

From: Steffen Klassert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:58:40 +0100

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 02:35:05AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Steffen Klassert <[email-masked]>
> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:57:56 +0100
> 
> > On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:25:29AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >> Hi:
> >> 
> >> While looking through the inetpeer code I noticed that there is
> >> no namespace support at all.  This means that metric and other
> >> information will be leaking across namespaces.  As IP addresses
> >> are meant to be independent between them, this is not a good thing.
> >> 
> > 
> > Actually, it would be nice if we could have an inetpeer base per
> > fib table. This would imply namespace awareness and it would
> > handle the problem when we have mulitiple routes (with different
> > metrics etc.) to the same ip address on policy routing.
> 
> Then you will ask for one per security policy too, to handle IPSEC.

Hm, I don't see why this would be needed too.

It was just an idea to handle the metrcis with policy routing.
Better ideas are very welcome of course :)