On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 15:46 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > That's pretty impressive (if it does not come at the expensive of
> > features that Qemu's slirp code has) - and the thing is that we don't
> > actually have to implement the vast majority of TCP-IP features,
> > because the transport between the guest and the host is obviously
> > reliable.
>
> I don't see how it would. Once you overrun device buffers, you have to
> do something. Either you drop packets or you stall the guest. I'd
> usually prefer the former :).
If we make the buffers large enough, will this matter in practice?
> > This patch-set turned out to be a *lot* more simple than i first
> > thought it would end up.
> >
> > Simpler also means potentially faster and potentially more secure.
> >
> > ( The lack of ipv6 is not something we should worry about too much,
> > ipv4 should scale up to a couple of hundred thousand virtual
> > machines per box, right? )
>
> Well, if the system you're trying to connect to supports ipv4, sure.
> If it doesn't, tough luck :).
Does that mean that the guests would effectively be ipv4-only? That'd be
unfortunate.
Pekka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
