From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 30 14:32:31 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 137D416A4B3 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:32:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shellma.zin.lublin.pl (shellma.zin.lublin.pl [212.182.126.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BED843F85 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:32:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pawmal-posting@freebsd.lublin.pl) Received: by shellma.zin.lublin.pl (Postfix, from userid 1018) id CD69C5F103; Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:35:34 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:35:34 +0200 From: Pawel Malachowski To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20030930213534.GA26486@shellma.zin.lublin.pl> References: <92028.1064699839@critter.freebsd.dk> <20030929050442.GA20995@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20030929050442.GA20995@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Subject: Re: TEST PLEASE: if_tun patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:32:31 -0000 On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 10:04:42PM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote: > I'm not convinced this is the right direction to move in. The problem > is that users are beginning to expect that pseudo-interfaces be created > with network interface cloning, but tun, tap, and vmnet aren't. I'm Same about ef(4) pseudo-interfaces. Another thing is that someone may want to create vlan(4) and ef(4) pseudo-interfaces on tap(4) interface, like this: (1)ttyp4 [~]>ifconfig tap19 tap19: flags=8843 mtu 1500 inet 10.19.0.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.19.0.255 inet6 fe80::2bd:69ff:fe94:13%tap19 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x13 ether 00:bd:69:94:00:13 (2)ttyp4 [~]>ifconfig vlan0 create (3)ttyp4 [~]>ifconfig vlan0 vlan 123 vlandev tap0 (4)ttyp4 [~]>ifconfig vlan0 vlan0: flags=8842 mtu 1496 ether 00:bd:68:94:00:00 vlan: 123 parent interface: tap0 (5)ttyp4 [~]>kldload if_ef (6)ttyp4 [~]>ifconfig tap19f2 tap19f2: flags=8842 mtu 1500 ether 00:bd:69:94:00:13 I have no idea if it works. ;) [screenshot from 4.x, I have no 5.x at this moment] It looks strange to have `ifconfig create' vlan interface on tap, while tap uses different semantics and can disappear after closing it? With ef it is even worse, pseudo-devices are created while ef is starting, so ef module must be loaded after creating every ethernet device. > concerned that this destroy on last close semantic will make it harder > to implement that. I guess if we moved to a model where we allowed both > methods to work, we could somehow add an extra reference when we cloned > interfaces via "ifconfig create", but I don't know the devfs side > well enough to know if that's possible. -- Paweł Małachowski