On Fri 25 Dec 2015 at 13:57:30 -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> Well, we could factor out the common code for these kinds of cloners
> from tap and use it for both tap and tun from the look of it. Why
> don't you give it a try?
I'll give it a go! It will be a few days before I can actually try it
On Fri 25 Dec 2015 at 16:02:57 +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> Exactly, it depends if it makes sense to have a magic minor device like
> that... Does it?
Well, it seems that Linux has it. In fact, it has a single file for both
tap en tun (/dev/net/tun) and an ioctl to change it between tun and
In article <22169.1451036...@andromeda.noi.kre.to>,
Robert Elz wrote:
>Date:Fri, 25 Dec 2015 00:20:56 +0100
>From:Rhialto
>Message-ID: <20151224232056.gf5...@falu.nl>
>
> | Grom reading the source, net/if_tun.c, I get the
On Dec 25, 5:19pm, rhia...@falu.nl (Rhialto) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Is tun(4) a cloning device?
| Well, it seems that Linux has it. In fact, it has a single file for both
| tap en tun (/dev/net/tun) and an ioctl to change it between tun and
| tap.
|
| I don't propose to go that far (I think
Rhialto wrote:
>On Fri 25 Dec 2015 at 16:02:57 +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> Exactly, it depends if it makes sense to have a magic minor device like
>> that... Does it?
>
>Well, it seems that Linux has it. In fact, it has a single file for both
>tap en tun (/dev/net/tun) and
On Fri 25 Dec 2015 at 17:26:04 +, Robert Swindells wrote:
> Why not use tap(4) ?
Yes, I use that too as an option. That's why I like tun and tap to be as
similar as possible (barring their fundamental differences of course).
If both can just open /dev/xxx that is nicer than one use case just
From reading the source, net/if_tun.c, I get the impression that tun is
a cloning device. Like tap. (The word clone appears several times)
But for tap this is mentioned in the manual, and MAKEDEV creates a
/dev/tap (next to /dev/tap[0-3]). But not for tun, when it seems it
could be.
Any