On 06/28/2013 05:31 PM, Stas Sergeev wrote: > How would you then interpret this: > --- > vde_plug2tap is another plug tool that can be connected to vde_switches. > Instead of using standard input and standard output for network I/O > everything that come from vde_switch to the plug is redirected to the > specified tap interface. > ---
Yes, it looks like the communication between VDE switches and other units is done via stdin/stdout. But they don't say what kind of protocol they use - probably something that they rolled on their own I guess. I doubt it's raw frames, since the whole VDE thing is designed to be distributed, so there must be some kind of control communication at some point. The positive thing about slirp is that it uses SLIP as its transport protocol, which is dead simple. > This has the downsides too. dosemu releases are so > infrequent that the new features of slirp, if any, will be > delayed for too long. Sure. But on the other hand, if it works today, there's no reason it will stop working tomorrow ;) The big advantage I see about embedding slirp is that it provides a 'one checkbox makes it working' setting inside dosemu. As soon as we use the words 'vde', 'switch', 'bridge', or 'slirp', we instantly loose users that will be scared of such stuff (or too lazy to care). Having a setting named naively 'nat' that says 'check this and you will have a working internet connectivity' is, IMHO, much more sexy for most users (me included - making things as simple as possible is the main reason why I started taprouter in the first place). > IF vde have some better availability in the repos, then > my vote will be with it.... but it doesn't seem to be the > case. :) In fact, it would not change much. Something like 'install VDE and configure DOSemu to hook on it' instead of 'install SLIRP and configure DOSemu to hook on it'. At the architecture level, it would be DOSemu -> VDEslirp instead of DOSemu -> slirp. But of course you are right that in such situation the availability of the 'auxiliary' software would be a strong argument. But still, having the whole thing integrated into DOSemu would provide a universal & unified solution, and the user wouldn't have to care about anything, just installing DOSemu itself. > Not directly related to you problem, but see if pty suits > better for your needs then socketpairs etc. It usually > always does. I don't know pty very much (never used them), that's why I use socket pairs, because I'm simply more familiar with them. But after taking a look at the documentation, both sound quite similar.. What kind of benefit could I have from using pty rather than normal sockets? is pty 8bit safe? can it be used with select() ? cheers, Mateusz ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Dosemu-devel mailing list Dosemu-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dosemu-devel
