From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: Raw vs. tap Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:32:03 -0500 Message-ID: <4AD72453.1050209@codemonkey.ws> References: <4AC29E4D.80707@us.ibm.com> <200910081555.40897.jens@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4ACDF550.1020502@codemonkey.ws> <20091014132154.GA29037@redhat.com> <4AD5DD6B.2030703@codemonkey.ws> <20091014142453.GA29798@redhat.com> <20091014151917.GB17062@shareable.org> <20091014155018.GB30179@redhat.com> <1255554600.20366.9.camel@w-sridhar.beaverton.ibm.com> <4AD65684.3010403@codemonkey.ws> <20091015075612.GB32003@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Sridhar Samudrala , Jamie Lokier , Paul Brook , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm-devel , Jens Osterkamp To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Return-path: Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.156]:52987 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762742AbZJONeH (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:34:07 -0400 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 16so488515fgg.1 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 06:32:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20091015075612.GB32003@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 05:53:56PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> I would be much more inclined to consider >> taking raw and improving the performance long term if guest<->host >> networking worked. This appears to be a fundamental limitation though >> and I think it's something that will forever plague users if we include >> this feature. >> > > In fact, I think it's fixable with a raw socket bound to a macvlan. > Would that be enough? > What setup does that entail on the part of a user? Wouldn't we be back to square one wrt users having to run archaic networking commands in order to set things up? Regards, Anthony Liguori