On 12/9/20, remyw...@cs.washington.edu <remyw...@cs.washington.edu> wrote: > > [ ... ] You're brave!
> And several details: > 1. I had to hard-code the tap device name "tap5" because `ip tuntap ...` > doesn't return the interface name. > 2. I have no idea what 0.0.0.0 is, or where to pass it in. (tried `ip link > set tap5 up address 0.0.0.0` but it complained the address was too short). > Even if the interface name is not returned (which usually means the powers that be have found a more sensible, but totally novel way to make it available), you should really set iface=tap5 or even export iface=tap5 and save a lot of editing later. If "0.0.0.0" is too short, the chances are "0.0.0.0/0" may be the valid form. 0.0.0.0[/0] is more a place holder (a bit like NULL) than a real IP address. That said, I am still trying to get my head around creating tap devices for VMs, in the new lingo (or in the old) even though my TCP/IP experience goes back to 1990. But then I think the RFCs at that stage were still below one thousand. Lucio. ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T84b4492f91f2abb6-M77f8e210b7e9e2a9fbbf2e2d Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
