On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:17:31AM -0800, John Nemeth wrote: > On Feb 12, 10:33am, Roy Marples wrote: > } On 12/02/2016 08:34, Ryota Ozaki wrote: > } > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Mouse <mo...@rodents-montreal.org> wrote: > } >>> [J]ust wondering if we are going to see vether(4) anytime soon. > } >> > } >> How would this vether differ from the existing tap? Presumably I'm > } >> just missing something.... > } > > } > dhcpcd didn't work well with bridge(4) and tap(4) didn't help that. > } > vether(4) would help that. We may be able to address the issue by > } > fixing bridge or tap but I have no idea for now. > } > } It's not actually dhcpcd itself - it's the kernel BPF implementation. > } There was also an issue where some DHCPv6 messages were not following > } across the bridge properly either. > } > } If vether solves that then great, but does that mean we could drop the > } tap interface entirely or just swap it in place? > } From my perspective (a user), there is no difference between tap and vether? > > tap(4) is a direct interface between userland and the network.
Only if you actually hook something up to the userland side. Otherwise, hooked to a bridge, it is exactly and only what vether(4) is. Thor
