From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Woodhouse Subject: Re: [iproute2 patch]: Add 'ip tuntap' facility for managing tun/tap devices Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 15:49:19 +0100 Message-ID: <1241448559.6126.110.camel@macbook.infradead.org> References: <1241433136.6126.70.camel@macbook.infradead.org> <1241433778.6126.90.camel@macbook.infradead.org> <20090504073813.19d0d624@nehalam> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:37798 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757387AbZEDOtV (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 10:49:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090504073813.19d0d624@nehalam> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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? -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse@intel.com Intel Corporation