Re: Simplify bridge(4)

2016-02-12 Thread Roy Marples
On 12/02/2016 08:34, Ryota Ozaki wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Mouse wrote: >>> [J]ust wondering if we are going to see vether(4) anytime soon. >> >> How would this vether differ from the existing tap? Presumably I'm >> just missing something > >

Re: Simplify bridge(4)

2016-02-12 Thread Ryota Ozaki
2016/02/11 2:36 "Taylor R Campbell" : > >Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:56:46 +0900 >From: Ryota Ozaki > >Thanks to introducing softint-based if_input, >we can simplify bridge(4). > > Awesome! I love patches that have loads

Re: Simplify bridge(4)

2016-02-12 Thread Ryota Ozaki
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Mouse wrote: >> [J]ust wondering if we are going to see vether(4) anytime soon. > > How would this vether differ from the existing tap? Presumably I'm > just missing something dhcpcd didn't work well with bridge(4) and tap(4)

Re: passive references

2016-02-12 Thread Kengo NAKAHARA
Hi riastradh@n.o On 2016/02/11 3:01, Taylor R Campbell wrote: >Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 17:20:15 +0900 >From: Kengo NAKAHARA > >I tried to use passive reference for a encaptab list itself instead of >pserialize_read_enter(). ># As you know, packet

Re: Simplify bridge(4)

2016-02-12 Thread Robert Swindells
Ryota Ozaki wrote: >On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Mouse wrote: >>> [J]ust wondering if we are going to see vether(4) anytime soon. >> >> How would this vether differ from the existing tap? Presumably I'm >> just missing something > >dhcpcd didn't work well

Re: Simplify bridge(4)

2016-02-12 Thread John Nemeth
On Feb 12, 10:33am, Roy Marples wrote: } On 12/02/2016 08:34, Ryota Ozaki wrote: } > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Mouse wrote: } >>> [J]ust wondering if we are going to see vether(4) anytime soon. } >> } >> How would this vether differ from the existing tap?

Re: passive references

2016-02-12 Thread Taylor R Campbell
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:19:14 +0900 From: Kengo NAKAHARA I implement gif(4) softint fix code suggested by your design using passive reference. Here is the patch include your passive reference implement(with tiny fixes).

Re: Simplify bridge(4)

2016-02-12 Thread Mouse
> tap(4) is a direct interface between userland and the network. Well, where "the network" refers to the Ethernet stack and higher layers within the kernel, not to any real networking medium. > vether(4) would not be (although you could use BPF, etc.). It would > be an ethernet device that

Re: Simplify bridge(4)

2016-02-12 Thread Thor Lancelot Simon
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:17:31AM -0800, John Nemeth wrote: > On Feb 12, 10:33am, Roy Marples wrote: > } On 12/02/2016 08:34, Ryota Ozaki wrote: > } > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Mouse wrote: > } >>> [J]ust wondering if we are going to see vether(4) anytime soon.