|
|
| isolated "internal" network? |
|
2006-09-14 12:58:10 |
On reflection you are absolutely correct.
But, it would be nice to have a local dummy ethernet device
that's
bridgeable. Perhaps that's tap with a small user-space
program.
--
Greg Troxel <gdt ir.bbn.com>
|
|
| isolated "internal" network? |
|
2006-09-14 13:29:24 |
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 08:58:10AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> On reflection you are absolutely correct.
>
> But, it would be nice to have a local dummy ethernet
device that's
> bridgeable. Perhaps that's tap with a small
user-space program.
Why would you need the user-space program?
--
Quentin Garnier - cubecubidou.net - cubeNetBSD.org
"You could have made it, spitting out benchmarks
Owe it to yourself not to fail"
Amplifico, Spitting Out Benchmarks, Hometakes Vol. 2, 2005.
|
|
| isolated "internal" network? |
|
2006-09-14 13:29:24 |
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 08:58:10AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> On reflection you are absolutely correct.
>
> But, it would be nice to have a local dummy ethernet
device that's
> bridgeable. Perhaps that's tap with a small
user-space program.
Why would you need the user-space program?
--
Quentin Garnier - cubecubidou.net - cubeNetBSD.org
"You could have made it, spitting out benchmarks
Owe it to yourself not to fail"
Amplifico, Spitting Out Benchmarks, Hometakes Vol. 2, 2005.
|
|
| isolated "internal" network? |
|
2006-09-14 14:23:41 |
I'm thinking that something should read any packets that
end up
getting sent and discard them; this feels cleaner than
having them
fill up in a queue and get dropped.
|
|
| isolated "internal" network? |
|
2006-09-14 14:34:43 |
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 10:23:41AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> I'm thinking that something should read any packets
that end up
> getting sent and discard them; this feels cleaner than
having them
> fill up in a queue and get dropped.
Sent by whom? A tap device that is not opened is like an
unconnected
Ethernet device. The fact that it is bridged to another
only means
that you have a permanent MAC address, as well as an IP
address if
you wish, on that bridge.
It's really no different to having an additional,
unconnected Ethernet
device in the system.
--
Quentin Garnier - cubecubidou.net - cubeNetBSD.org
"You could have made it, spitting out benchmarks
Owe it to yourself not to fail"
Amplifico, Spitting Out Benchmarks, Hometakes Vol. 2, 2005.
|
|
| isolated "internal" network? |
|
2006-09-14 14:23:41 |
I'm thinking that something should read any packets that
end up
getting sent and discard them; this feels cleaner than
having them
fill up in a queue and get dropped.
|
|
| isolated "internal" network? |
|
2006-09-14 14:34:43 |
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 10:23:41AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> I'm thinking that something should read any packets
that end up
> getting sent and discard them; this feels cleaner than
having them
> fill up in a queue and get dropped.
Sent by whom? A tap device that is not opened is like an
unconnected
Ethernet device. The fact that it is bridged to another
only means
that you have a permanent MAC address, as well as an IP
address if
you wish, on that bridge.
It's really no different to having an additional,
unconnected Ethernet
device in the system.
--
Quentin Garnier - cubecubidou.net - cubeNetBSD.org
"You could have made it, spitting out benchmarks
Owe it to yourself not to fail"
Amplifico, Spitting Out Benchmarks, Hometakes Vol. 2, 2005.
|
|
| isolated "internal" network? |
|
2006-09-14 13:29:24 |
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 08:58:10AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> On reflection you are absolutely correct.
>
> But, it would be nice to have a local dummy ethernet
device that's
> bridgeable. Perhaps that's tap with a small
user-space program.
Why would you need the user-space program?
--
Quentin Garnier - cubecubidou.net - cubeNetBSD.org
"You could have made it, spitting out benchmarks
Owe it to yourself not to fail"
Amplifico, Spitting Out Benchmarks, Hometakes Vol. 2, 2005.
|
|
| isolated "internal" network? |
|
2006-09-14 13:29:24 |
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 08:58:10AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> On reflection you are absolutely correct.
>
> But, it would be nice to have a local dummy ethernet
device that's
> bridgeable. Perhaps that's tap with a small
user-space program.
Why would you need the user-space program?
--
Quentin Garnier - cubecubidou.net - cubeNetBSD.org
"You could have made it, spitting out benchmarks
Owe it to yourself not to fail"
Amplifico, Spitting Out Benchmarks, Hometakes Vol. 2, 2005.
|
|
| isolated "internal" network? |
|
2006-09-14 14:23:41 |
I'm thinking that something should read any packets that
end up
getting sent and discard them; this feels cleaner than
having them
fill up in a queue and get dropped.
|
|