Re: Simplify bridge(4)

[Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost>]

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 <mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost> 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