[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Is tun(4) a cloning device?
In article <22169.1451036519%andromeda.noi.kre.to@localhost>,
Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost> wrote:
> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 00:20:56 +0100
> From: Rhialto <rhialto%falu.nl@localhost>
> Message-ID: <20151224232056.GF5677%falu.nl@localhost>
> | Grom reading the source, net/if_tun.c, I get the impression that tun is
> | a cloning device. Like tap.
>It is a cloning device, but not quite like tap.
>It is a cloning device, in the sense that there is no magic number of
>tunnel devices configured into the kernel, which you cannot exceed at
>run time - if you want tap999 just ifconfig it (ifconfig tun999 create)
>and it exists. This is how most cloning pseudo-devices work, and it
>means that when you use it, you know in advance which interface number
>you're getting (you choose).
>However, it does not have the magic minor device that creates a new
>interface every time it is opened (the /dev/tap equivalent).
Exactly, it depends if it makes sense to have a magic minor device like
that... Does it?
Main Index |
Thread Index |