On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 03:17:05PM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > It looks strange to have `ifconfig create' vlan interface on tap,
> > while tap uses different semantics and can disappear after closing it?
> > With ef it is even worse, pseudo-devices are created while ef is
> > starting, so ef mo
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 11:35:34PM +0200, Pawel Malachowski wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 10:04:42PM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote:
>
> > I'm not convinced this is the right direction to move in. The problem
> > is that users are beginning to expect that pseudo-interfaces be created
> > with netwo
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 10:04:42PM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote:
> I'm not convinced this is the right direction to move in. The problem
> is that users are beginning to expect that pseudo-interfaces be created
> with network interface cloning, but tun, tap, and vmnet aren't. I'm
Same about ef(4)
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 07:29:08AM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brooks Davis writes:
>
>
> >> | Properly dismantle and remove the interface and destroy the dev_t=20
> >> | at last close of the device.
> >
> >I'm not convinced this is the right direction to mov
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brooks Davis writes:
>> | Properly dismantle and remove the interface and destroy the dev_t=20
>> | at last close of the device.
>
>I'm not convinced this is the right direction to move in. The problem
>is that users are beginning to expect that pseudo-interfaces
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 11:57:19PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> Please test this patch:
>
> http://phk.freebsd.dk/patch/if_tun.patch
>
> There is a slight change in semantics in that the interface will disappear
> entirely when the /dev/tun%d device is closed.
>
> If no objections
