Re: [Qemu-devel] bug reports and suggestions

[Oliver Gerlich <olig9@gmx.de>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jim C. Brown schrieb:
> On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 01:12:50AM +0200, Oliver Gerlich wrote:
> 
>>Don Kitchen schrieb:
>>
>>>Next, it seems the *one* thing QEMU lacks that you-know-who does correctly
>>>is networking, specifically bridged mode. I know about creating a tap device
>>>and sticking it into a bridge (really hasn't worked for me, but that's the
>>>subject for a different day.) I realize that it's a complicated issue
>>>requiring kernel modules, etc, and exponentially more complicated with
>>>cross platform, but I wonder if anyone has considered trying to tie into
>>>the vmware-player's kernel modules and use them? There has to be some sort
>>>of de-facto API for interaction between the modules and the player. Too
>>>rife with IP problems?
>>
>>Someone wrote a kernel module some months ago which exposes some special
>>kernel function via /proc ... IIUC this was intended to allow easier
>>networking... Does anyone know more about it (or did anyone understand
>>my confusing description ;) ?
> 
> 
> I'm the author.
> 
> It is called vde-inject, and it requires vdeqemu to work atm (though adding
> native support in qemu itself is trivial).

Thanks! That's the module I meant :)

> Currently I'm working on a version that doesn't require a kernel module to
> do this - it will have the limitation of only supporting tcp/ip packets when
> talking between host/guest.

Are you sure that limitation is not too "heavy"? How would eg. UDP, ICMP
or Multicast DNS work with the non-kernel-solution? And wouldn't an
ethernet-level emulation be cleaner and also easier to explain to other
users?

>>Another interesting thing concerning networking: I use a little script
>>to set up a bridge between eth0 and tap0; but I have give the new bridge
>>interface (eg. br0) an IP address and such stuff, because eth0 doesn't
>>work. This is with Linux 2.6, but I read that with Linux 2.4 it was not
>>necessary to configure br0, as eth0 would still be accessible. Does
>>anyone know why this changed? I think it would be much easier if an
>>interface used in a bridge was still usable.
> 
> 
> eth0 is still usable. It is just slightly cleaner to use br0 directly.

This is what I tried:

brctl addbr br0
brctl addif br0 eth0

After this, a ping to the IP of eth0 (192.168.0.10) still worked. But a
ping to the gateway (192.168.0.1) didn't. Running `ifconfig br0 up`
didn't help either. Do you have a hint how to make this work?


Thanks,
Oliver
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEX3pLTFOM6DcNJ6cRAsTuAKCvN0b68WV/dFsznXWhv+tfaxvZZgCfdYLp
VKEpNiUYKchHgRswHIL/BGo=
=cTW3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----