On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 10:33:28AM +0100, cube@cubidou.net wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I believe my ethfoo device has reached the point where it is useful
> enough (notably with qemu) it could be in the main part of tree, rather
> than a not built LKM.  There are a few points I need to address before
> that, though.

I'd like too. I'll need it for Xen 2.0 domain0 support.
See http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-xen/2004/12/12/0002.html
for the reasons why we need this :)

> 
> First, naming convention.  'ethfoo' was fine while it was only an
> example, do we want to keep it instead of the commonly accepted 'tap'?

My idea was ethtun, but if tap is already used elsewhere, go for it.

> That leads to another question:  should I add a tun-like part to it
> so it could replace tun(4), or should I merge it with tun?  I don't
> think it really makes sense to have both around.

I was also thinking about adding a link2 flag to tun(4) to turn on ethernet
emulation. I don't know how this would play with the ethernet layer.
I think an ethernet device needs to be registered here at creation time,
and can't be attached/detached from the ethernet layer at a later time.
But I didn't look deeply at this.

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.eu.org>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--