Re: Is tun(4) a cloning device?

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

Re: Is tun(4) a cloning device?

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

Re: Is tun(4) a cloning device?

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

Re: Is tun(4) a cloning device?

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

Re: Is tun(4) a cloning device?

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

Re: Is tun(4) a cloning device?

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