Re: vether vs tap [was Re: Simplify bridge(4)]

> What is different in the idea of vether(4) that would make > work? What goes wrong with it? Does it not show you PR 40139 or something? I'm going to assume that that Web URL is just a peculiar way of saying "PR 40139", largely because the PR appears closely rel

vether vs tap [was Re: Simplify bridge(4)]

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 21:21:29 -0500 From: Thor Lancelot Simon On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:17:31AM -0800, John Nemeth wrote: > tap(4) is a direct interface between userland and the network. Only if you actually hook something up to the userland side. Otherwise, hooked to

Re: Simplify bridge(4)

> Linux takes it even further. If you add an interface to a bridge, the > interface can't be an IP endpoint any more. You have to use the > bridge for that instead. I agree that is stupid. I would advocate against doing it if anyone were to propose it here. /~\ The ASCII

Re: Simplify bridge(4)

On Fri 12 Feb 2016 at 17:19:59 -0500, Mouse wrote: > Indeed, > I would say that bridge should not, conceptually, be a network > interface at all; I suspect it was done as a network interface simply > because that got a lot of infrastructure for free - and, if it works to > put an address on the bri

Re: Simplify bridge(4)

>> tap(4) is a direct interface between userland and the network. >> vether(4) would not be (although you could use BPF, etc.). [...] > As someone who tinkers with virtual machine emulators (PDP-10, PDP-11 > etc) I like tap(4) very much, [...]. It would be REALLY inconvenient > if suddenly NetBSD

Re: Simplify bridge(4)

On Fri 12 Feb 2016 at 10:17:31 -0800, John Nemeth wrote: > tap(4) is a direct interface between userland and the network. > vether(4) would not be (although you could use BPF, etc.). It > would be an ethernet device that represents the host. If you know > how to configure Cisco devices, thin