Hi David,
On Saturday, 26.03.2016 at 08:27, David Halls wrote:
> Thanks Martin. Couple of things:
>
> - I want to make sure I can use an existing bridge device. I take it I can
> since this spec is just saying how to configure the rumpkernel. e.g. I can
> continue to use 'kvm -netdev ... -device ...' and that is not going to be
> broken by anything here.
That's correct -- the spec is just a way to define how the unikernel
("guest-side") configuration gets passed. In other words, it informs the
unikernel that "You have X virtio/xenif/... interfaces, here's how to
configure them". How those interfaces are actually wired up on the backend
is left entirely to the launching stack (KVM, Xen).
> - I want to make sure I can use RFC-7217 addresses. I take it I can just
> calculate these separately and then pass them to the spec. i.e. nothing's
> going to happen to mess them up.
The current IPv6 RS implementation[1] is very simplistic and only does RFC
2464 so I'm afraid you won't be able to use RFC 7217 addressing (or other
private, persistent IID schemes) without some work.
What route to take to get to a full DHCP/SLAAC client is an open question.
Antti, what are your thoughts on whether to a) Continue improving the
libnetconfig-based functionality, vs b) (for example) multibaking in an
unmodified dhcpcd, vs c) something else entirely?
Martin
[1]
https://github.com/rumpkernel/buildrump.sh/blob/master/brlib/libnetconfig/netconfig.c#L394
