On Wed, 27 May 2009 17:49:32 +0100
David Woodhouse [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 09:38 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 27 May 2009 17:32:17 +0100
David Woodhouse [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 15:49 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 07:38 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:

quoted

I would rather provide a netlink for managing TUNTAP interfaces

I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense. We'd be adding a new, duplicate
user API solely for the benefit of iproute2; it's not as if we'd ever be
able to get rid of the existing interface that everyone uses.

Unless you want to ditch the /dev/net/tun chardev completely and do
_everything_ over netlink, maybe... but that doesn't seem particularly
worthwhile either.

quoted

 and reorganize under ip link??

It seemed more intuitive to model it after 'ip tunnel'. How would you
want it to look?

Ping?

Almost all of iproute2 is based on netlink, I don't want to add non netlink
interfaces. 

So you want to add a new interface to the kernel which duplicates the
one we've had for years, then make userspace which will only work with
newer kernels?

Well if the kernel interface existed for years, there were obviously other
tools using it. Why do you have to cram that into iproute2?

--