On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 02:11:05PM -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
On 08/31/2015 04:06 PM, Jonathan Toppins wrote:
>On 08/31/2015 03:25 PM, Guido Günther wrote:
>>Hi,
>>On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 04:19:10PM -0400, Jonathan Toppins wrote:
>>>Adds a new interface type using UDP sockets, this seems only applicable
>>>to QEMU but have edited tree-wide to support the new interface type.
>>>
>>>The interface type required the addition of a "localaddr" (local
>>>address), this then maps into the following xml and qemu call.
>>>
>>><interface type='udp'>
>>
>>
>>Sine we do have
>>
>> <interface type='mcast'>
>>
>>already wouldn't it be better to have something like
>>
>> <interface type='ucast' protocol='udp'>
>>
>
>This possibly could be better, my concern would be now tcp is configured
>differently than udp, no? Or are you saying something like:
>
> <interface type='ucast' protocol='udp|tcp'>
I think the case of a tcp connection is already handled by <interface
type='client'> and <interface type='server'> together, so that
doesn't seem
likely to happen. I suppose it's possible someone would come up with an
sctp-based transport in the future though. I'm undecided about this.
Yeah, given what we've done for TCP already, I don't really see any
point in trying to invent a more generic type=ucast + protocol=udp|tcp.
We might as well just stick with a simple type=udp
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
http://berrange.com -o-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|:
http://entangle-photo.org -o-
http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|