>> 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 would change methods, and need not only > NetBSD-dependent code but also NetBSD-version-dependent code.
I don't think anyone has proposed getting rid of tap(4) here - I would hope not, because, as you point out, it fills a real need - but I can certainly see how you could fear that. To whoever suggested vether(4) - jnemeth, I think - was getting rid of tap(4) any part of what you meant? /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B