Ah, no, both veths have a network-interface job sticking around.
Could this be seen as a kernel/udev bug, that when they veth is destroyed (and maybe even when passed to a new netns) a uevent should be sent?
Ah, no, both veths have a network-interface job sticking around.
Could this be seen as a kernel/udev bug, that when they veth is destroyed (and maybe even when passed to a new netns) a uevent should be sent?