[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GSoC: the plan for the project network virtualization

From: olafBuddenhagen
Subject: Re: GSoC: the plan for the project network virtualization
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:12:41 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)


On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 10:12:21PM +0200, zhengda wrote:

> 1) hypervisor creates a virtual network interface

>    How is the programming interface like for the virtual network
>    interface? I mean, is the pfinet still able to open it with
>    device_open()?

Well, as I mentioned in the original discussion, both approaches are
possible: Either there is a special para-virtualized interface which
pfinets must explicitely implement so they can talk to the hypervisor.

Or the hypervisor provides a virtual network interface that looks just
like the actual Mach-provided one.

The first approach is simpler on the hypervisor side, but requires
changes in pfinet, and isn't fully transparent in usage.

Para-virtualization also can be more efficient -- but I'm not sure it
would make any difference here.

I personally think the fully virtualized approach is more elegant, but

>    If pfinet can open the interface with device_open(), I think we
>    need  to write another program like boot to give pfinet the pseudo
>    master  device port and help pfinet open the virtual network
>    interface.

Why another program? I'm pretty sure "boot" is the right place to handle

>    The second question is: who can create the virtual network
>    interface? 

By default, the user who invokes the hypervisor. (I.e. the one running

More sophisticated policy control is certainly possible, but I can't
think of any use case right now.

>    I still don't understand who should check and control the packet.

I'm not sure I understand the question. I thought it is rather clear
that the hypervisor does the checks?...


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]