Re: Raw vs. tap

[Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>]

Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 08:32:03AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>   
>> 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?
>>     
>
> Unlike bridge, qemu could set up macvlan without disrupting
> host networking. The only issue would be cleanup if qemu
> is killed.
>   

But this would require additional features in macvlan, correct?

This also only works if a guest uses the mac address assigned to it, 
correct?  If a guest was bridging the virtual nic, this would all come 
apart?

Regards,

Anthony Liguori