From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1C0OFE-0005uQ-Mi for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:41:04 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1C0OFD-0005tv-J3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:41:03 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C0OFD-0005ts-GZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:41:03 -0400 Received: from [38.113.3.71] (helo=smtp-out.hotpop.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C0O9z-0002lY-5F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:35:39 -0400 Received: from phreaker.net (kubrick.hotpop.com [38.113.3.103]) by smtp-out.hotpop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0CF5B109D0CF for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:35:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:33:08 -0400 From: "Jim C. Brown" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] pcap-based networking? Message-ID: <20040826173308.GA1778@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org> References: <5640213304082609425986326c@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5640213304082609425986326c@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: jbrown106@swift-mail.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Mike Tremoulet , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 11:42:45AM -0500, Mike Tremoulet wrote: > All -- > > My question is: Is there a reason to use (or not to use) a > libpcap/libnet solution for networking? At a high level, I think of > it as a queue of incoming packets and a queue of outgoing packets > (from the standpoint of the guest). Outgoing packets from the guest > would be held in a queue and written onto the network via libnet, and > incoming packets would get captured by libpcap and written to the > virtual device. > > The advantages for me would be: > - I can bind this networking to the device of my explicit choosing at > runtime. So, I could install a tap device on my host and have qemu > always use that device, or I could bind it to a second NIC on the > host. > - More importantly, this can be somewhat platform independant. > Libpcap exists in a very similar, if not identical, API in the form of > winpcap. I know there is an equivalent way to write packets to the > network, but I forget the name right now. > > What would the potential performance impacts be? Is this something > that I/we should pursue? Other thoughts? > > -- Mike This is a good idea. We should keep the tuntap interface, but adding support for libpcap is useful for those OSes which do not have a tuntap-like interface. > > > _______________________________________________ > Qemu-devel mailing list > Qemu-devel@nongnu.org > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel > -- Infinite complexity begets infinite beauty. Infinite precision begets infinite perfection.