[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [MirageOS-devel] TunTap vs PACKET sockets

  • To: mirageos-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • From: Hannes Mehnert <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 14:05:54 +0100
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 13:06:28 +0000
  • List-id: Developer list for MirageOS <mirageos-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
  • Openpgp: id=11B5464249B5BD858FFF6328BC896588DF7C28EE

On 11/19/2015 13:46, Hannes Mehnert wrote:
> On 11/19/2015 13:27, Richard Mortier wrote:
>> What's the rationale for / trade-off of using tun/tap vs using packet 
>> sockets?
> I assume you're talking about socket(PF_PACKET, SOCK_RAW, _)?  This
> seems to be only supported on Linux.
> On BSD systems, pcap is responsible for capturing an interface (see
> pcap_open_live / pcap_inject).

And once you use them, you'll discover that your host network stack
doesn't receive the packet's you inject via pcap_inject, and your mirage
kernel doesn't receive packets from your host (at least as far as I
remember when I did this several years ago).


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

MirageOS-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.