From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [iproute2 patch]: Add 'ip tuntap' facility for managing tun/tap devices Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 10:06:47 -0700 Message-ID: <20090527100647.06f07e1f@nehalam> References: <1241433136.6126.70.camel@macbook.infradead.org> <1241433778.6126.90.camel@macbook.infradead.org> <20090504073813.19d0d624@nehalam> <1241448559.6126.110.camel@macbook.infradead.org> <1243441938.18507.30.camel@macbook.infradead.org> <20090527093815.4ddf99de@nehalam> <1243442972.18507.32.camel@macbook.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Woodhouse Return-path: Received: from mail.vyatta.com ([76.74.103.46]:58213 "EHLO mail.vyatta.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754550AbZE0RGv (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 May 2009 13:06:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1243442972.18507.32.camel@macbook.infradead.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 27 May 2009 17:49:32 +0100 David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 09:38 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Wed, 27 May 2009 17:32:17 +0100 > > David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 15:49 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 07:38 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > > > I would rather provide a netlink for managing TUNTAP interfaces > > > > > > > > I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense. We'd be adding a new, duplicate > > > > user API solely for the benefit of iproute2; it's not as if we'd ever be > > > > able to get rid of the existing interface that everyone uses. > > > > > > > > Unless you want to ditch the /dev/net/tun chardev completely and do > > > > _everything_ over netlink, maybe... but that doesn't seem particularly > > > > worthwhile either. > > > > > > > > > and reorganize under ip link?? > > > > > > > > It seemed more intuitive to model it after 'ip tunnel'. How would you > > > > want it to look? > > > > > > Ping? > > > > > > > Almost all of iproute2 is based on netlink, I don't want to add non netlink > > interfaces. > > So you want to add a new interface to the kernel which duplicates the > one we've had for years, then make userspace which will only work with > newer kernels? Well if the kernel interface existed for years, there were obviously other tools using it. Why do you have to cram that into iproute2? --