I'm very impressed. I do however have some questions.
(I have not read the code yet, just the writeup)
1/ How do you cope with each machine expecting to have it's own loopback
interface? Is it sufficient to make lo1 lo2 lo3 etc. and attache them
to the appropriate VMs?
2/ How much would be gained (i.e. is it worth it) to combine this with
jail? Can you combine them? (does it work?) Does it make sense?
3/ You implemented this in 4.x which means that we need to reimplement
it in -current before it has any chance of being 'included'. Do you
think that would be abig problem?
5/ Does inclusion of the virtualisation have any measurable effect on
throughputs for systems that are NOT using virtualisation. In other
words, does the non Virtualised code-path get much extra work? (doi you
have numbers?) (i.e. does it cost much for the OTHER users if we
incorporated this into FreeBSD?)
6/ I think that your ng_dummy node is cute..
can I commit it separatly? (after porting it to -current..)
7/ the vmware image is a great idea.
8/ can you elaborate on the following:
* hiding of "foreign" filesystem mounts within chrooted virtual images
9/ how does VIPA differ from the JAIL address binding?
10/ could you use ng_eiface instead of if_ve?
11/ why was ng_bridge unsuitable for your use?
12/ can you elaborate on the following:
# fix netgraph interface node naming
# fix the bugs in base networking code (statistics in
"native" bridging, additional logic for ng_bridge...)
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
