[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1243442972.18507.32.camel@macbook.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 17:49:32 +0100
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [iproute2 patch]: Add 'ip tuntap' facility for managing
tun/tap devices
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 09:38 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 17:32:17 +0100
> David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 15:49 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 07:38 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > > I would rather provide a netlink for managing TUNTAP interfaces
> > >
> > > I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense. We'd be adding a new, duplicate
> > > user API solely for the benefit of iproute2; it's not as if we'd ever be
> > > able to get rid of the existing interface that everyone uses.
> > >
> > > Unless you want to ditch the /dev/net/tun chardev completely and do
> > > _everything_ over netlink, maybe... but that doesn't seem particularly
> > > worthwhile either.
> > >
> > > > and reorganize under ip link??
> > >
> > > It seemed more intuitive to model it after 'ip tunnel'. How would you
> > > want it to look?
> >
> > Ping?
> >
>
> Almost all of iproute2 is based on netlink, I don't want to add non netlink
> interfaces.
So you want to add a new interface to the kernel which duplicates the
one we've had for years, then make userspace which will only work with
newer kernels?
--
David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse@...el.com Intel Corporation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists