From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Fd9XN-0002aj-0S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 May 2006 13:28:49 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Fd9XK-0002aQ-Di for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 May 2006 13:28:47 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fd9XK-0002aN-Ag for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 May 2006 13:28:46 -0400 Received: from [128.8.10.163] (helo=po1.wam.umd.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1Fd9YC-0006Tb-So for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 May 2006 13:29:41 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 13:28:41 -0400 From: "Jim C. Brown" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] bug reports and suggestions Message-ID: <20060508172841.GA28661@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org> References: <20060505215128.4171C1DC197@ravel.n2.net> <445BDBF2.9060605@gmx.de> <20060508155851.GB15522@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org> <445F7A4F.1080007@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <445F7A4F.1080007@gmx.de> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Oliver Gerlich Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 07:05:19PM +0200, Oliver Gerlich wrote: > > Currently I'm working on a version that doesn't require a kernel module to > > do this - it will have the limitation of only supporting tcp/ip packets when > > talking between host/guest. > > Are you sure that limitation is not too "heavy"? How would eg. UDP, ICMP > or Multicast DNS work with the non-kernel-solution? And wouldn't an > ethernet-level emulation be cleaner and also easier to explain to other > users? Bleh, sorry, I meant IP. It will theoretically support UDP, ICMP, etc (as long as it's encapsulated within an IP packet it should work). I'm primarily testing with TCP/IP. Ethernet-level emulation is significantly cleaner but it will not work without either kernel patches or a kernel module. I'm looking for a 100% user space solution. > > >>Another interesting thing concerning networking: I use a little script > >>to set up a bridge between eth0 and tap0; but I have give the new bridge > >>interface (eg. br0) an IP address and such stuff, because eth0 doesn't > >>work. This is with Linux 2.6, but I read that with Linux 2.4 it was not > >>necessary to configure br0, as eth0 would still be accessible. Does > >>anyone know why this changed? I think it would be much easier if an > >>interface used in a bridge was still usable. > > > > > > eth0 is still usable. It is just slightly cleaner to use br0 directly. > > This is what I tried: > > brctl addbr br0 > brctl addif br0 eth0 > > After this, a ping to the IP of eth0 (192.168.0.10) still worked. But a > ping to the gateway (192.168.0.1) didn't. Running `ifconfig br0 up` > didn't help either. Do you have a hint how to make this work? > What do your routing tables look like right before and right after you run those two commands? > > Thanks, > Oliver > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFEX3pLTFOM6DcNJ6cRAsTuAKCvN0b68WV/dFsznXWhv+tfaxvZZgCfdYLp > VKEpNiUYKchHgRswHIL/BGo= > =cTW3 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.