[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55352308-9ceb-413e-44f6-e3dfd8f642cc@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 20:55:17 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: jiangyiwen <jiangyiwen@...wei.com>, stefanha@...hat.com,
stefanha@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Discuss about an new idea "Vsock over Virtio-net"
On 2018/11/30 下午8:52, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> If you want to compare it with
>>> something that would be TCP or QUIC. The fundamental difference between
>>> virtio-vsock and e.g. TCP is that TCP operates in a packet loss environment.
>>> So they are using timers for reliability, and receiver is always free to
>>> discard any unacked data.
>> Virtio-net knows nothing above L2, so they are totally transparent to device
>> itself. I still don't get why not using virtio-net instead.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
> Is your question why is virtio-vsock used instead of TCP on top of IP
> on top of virtio-net?
>
>
No, my question is why not do vsock through virtio-net.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists