Re: [iproute2 patch]: Add 'ip tuntap' facility for managing tun/tap devices

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>]

On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 09:38 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 17:32:17 +0100
> David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> 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?

-- 
David Woodhouse                            Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse@intel.com                              Intel Corporation