[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAB=NE6XBcpOkktvEcGh=c9tTfAJjrnGWGDN9GmG-n+cx83-LLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:40:50 -0800
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>
To: Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@...rix.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dcbw@...hat.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 2/4] net: enables interface option to skip IP
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 5:02 AM, Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@...rix.com> wrote:
> Check this how current Xen scripts does routed networking:
>
> http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Networking#Associating_routes_with_virtual_devices
>
> Note, there are no bridges involved here! As the above page says, the
> backend has to have IP address, maybe it's not true anymore. I'm not too
> familiar with this setup too, I've used it only once.
Thanks, in such case I do think actually adding a bridge, adding the
backend interface to it, and then adding a route to the front end IP
would suffice to cover that case, but I'm pretty limited with test
devices so would appreciate if someone with a setup like that can test
it as an alternative. Please recall that the possible gains here
should be pretty significant in terms of simplification. And of
course, I still also haven't had time / systems to test the NAT
case...
Luis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists