Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754788AbaBSRK2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:10:28 -0500 Received: from mail-la0-f46.google.com ([209.85.215.46]:37031 "EHLO mail-la0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754222AbaBSRKZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:10:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1392803304.23084.95.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> References: <1392433180-16052-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <5301E411.5060908@citrix.com> <1392803304.23084.95.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:10:03 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: L98WOiZboGPzHeoIcYc-ZkeHgoE Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC v2 0/4] net: bridge / ip optimizations for virtual net backends To: Ian Campbell Cc: David Vrabel , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , kvm@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 11:43 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> >> New motivation: removing IPv4 and IPv6 from the backend interfaces can >> save up a lot of boiler plate run time code, triggers from ever taking >> place, and simplifying the backend interaces. If there is no use for >> IPv4 and IPv6 interfaces why do we have them? Note: I have yet to test >> the NAT case. > > I think you need to do that test that before you can unequivocally state > that there is no use for IPv4/6 interfaces here. Agreed but note that Zoltan stated that in the routing case IPv4 or IPv6 addresses can be used on the backends, so that already rules that out. Unless of course we want to enable this by default (for simplicity) and have userpace poke to get out IPv4 / IPv6 if by default no interfaces were enabled. Even though backend interfaces would stand to gain on the average situation from this simplicity I don't think the userspace requirements are worth it. Someone with hundreds of guests (that don't do routing on the backend as clarified by Zoltan) may want to test my patch though to see if there's any reasonable cuts on getting these guests up and running. Anyone itching for the above? Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/