Andrey Savochkin wrote:

> Ok, fine.
> Now I'm working on socket code.
> 
> We still have a question about implicit vs explicit function parameters.
> This question becomes more important for sockets: if we want to allow to use
> sockets belonging to namespaces other than the current one, we need to do
> something about it.
> 
> One possible option to resolve this question is to show 2 relatively short
> patches just introducing namespaces for sockets in 2 ways: with explicit
> function parameters and using implicit current context.
> Then people can compare them and vote.
> Do you think it's worth the effort?
> 

The attached patch can have some part interesting for you for the socket 
tagging. It is in the IPV4 isolation (part 5/6). With this and the 
private routing table you will probably have a good IPV4 isolation.