Re: Draft RFC for ONC RPC over AF_VSOCK

[Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>]

I agree -- that could be useful later. Given that, maybe we should call
the netids something like:

    vsockc: connected vsock
    vsockd: datagram vsock

AIUI, netids are just something we inherited from Sun when we got the
TI-RPC library. I don't think they are governed by any sort of
names+numbers authority, are they?

If not then we're probably define it to whatever we wish, though it
might be a good idea to talk to the Solaris folks and see if they have
any input as to the naming.

-- Jeff

On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 09:27 -0400, Matt Benjamin wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> This doc says they are:
> https://vmsplice.net/~stefan/stefanha-kvm-forum-2015.pdf
> 
> But only stream sockets are mentioned here:
> https://wiki.qemu.org/Features/VirtioVsock
> 
> Trond and Chuck suggested in an offline conversation a few weeks ago
> that they could imagine a datagram version of the transport being
> useful.  It's probably worth passing that alone.
> 
> Matt
> 
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-10-05 at 16:50 -0400, Matt Benjamin wrote:
> > > Hi Stefan,
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > I have previously submitted patches that implement NFS client and nfsd
> > > > support for the AF_VSOCK address family.  In order for this to be
> > > > acceptable for merge the AF_VSOCK transport needs to be defined in an
> > > > IETF RFC.  Below is a draft RFC that defines ONC RPC over AF_VSOCK.
> > > > 
> > > > My patches use netid "vsock" but "tcpv" has also been suggested.  This draft
> > > > RFC still uses "vsock" but I'll update it to "tcpv" if there is consensus.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I think "vsock" is the appropriate netid, not "tcpv."  Stream
> > > orientation, if anything, is the general category containing TCP and
> > > VSOCK, not the reverse.  But really I think it's just more clear.
> > > 
> > 
> > Agreed. VSOCK is its own thing. It bears some resemblance to TCP, but
> > calling it tcpv would be confusing. IIRC, Chuck only proposed that when
> > we were discussing an alternative transport that would look more like a
> > typical network.
> > 
> > BTW: Does VSOCK have a connectionless mode, analogous to UDP? If so,
> > then it may be nice to consider what the netid for that might look like
> > as well, before we settle on any names.
> > --
> > Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>