From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KMnd0-0004Hk-PD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:32:22 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KMncy-0004EY-FD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:32:21 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37713 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KMncy-0004EC-95
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:32:20 -0400
Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:41571)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <herbszt@gmx.de>) id 1KMncx-0001qo-Pw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:32:20 -0400
Message-ID: <04a201c8ef45$71ebcd80$0201a8c0@zeug>
From: "Sebastian Herbszt" <herbszt@gmx.de>
References: <200807171812.41200.jkim@FreeBSD.org>	<043901c8e8f1$6150b260$0201a8c0@zeug>
	<200807181639.49136.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
	<488A3CC0.60802@codemonkey.ws>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] networking using libpcap
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:30:50 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de>, Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org>

Anthony,

> 2) When using ifname=eth0, traffic doesn't work from host=>guest nor 
> from guest=>host.  This seems like a major short-coming to me.  Having 
> another networking option that is easy to use but doesn't work in some 
> fundamental way that a user would expect seems like it's just going to 
> lead to even further confusion.  This patch isn't attractive to me 
> unless it works just like you were bridging to a physical interface (and 
> I don't think there's anything fundamental preventing that).

this works on Win XP. According to the source it seems to need BIOCFEEDBACK
("This is necessary to connect host and guest.") on BSD. Maybe something like
this is also needed on your system.

Which OS did you try it with? Linux?

- Sebastian