Hi Christian, On 18.08.2018 16:27, Christian Gagneraud wrote: > On 18 August 2018 at 05:24, Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Maybe this is something that can be added to docker, that you can create >> vcan's and can-gw rules at startup without urging the docker instance to >> have root capabilities. > > Yes and no, my goal is a bit different, I want something generic: > - create CAN virtual busses, as many as you want. The same way you > create docker networks > - create docker containers, as many as you want > - connect them together with whatever topology you fancy. > > See below for more details. > I think i've achieved my goals (so far so good). > My main "issue" was the usage of the cangw as a replacement for the > lack of a "CAN Linux Bridge". > According to your explanation, that is the only way to go, for now. > >> The problem is: >> >> can's and vcan's are available in ONE namespace only >> vxcan's endpoints are visible in exactly TWO namespaces >> >> Currently having multiple can-gw rules (in the root namespace) >> interconnecting vxcan instances pointing into different namespaces seems to >> be the only solution. >> >> If you only have ONE CAN application in your namespace you might also let >> your application use the vxcan directly (without a can-gw crossrouting the >> traffic to another 'namespace local' vcan). >> >> The vxcan has no local echo. But if you only have one application nobody >> cares about the missing echo, right? ;-) >> >> Does that fit you use-case? > > It fits the simple use cases, but i want to offer a completely generic solution. > The way we do our automated test is by using BDD (eg. > https://behave.readthedocs.io/en/latest/) > It is up to the test writer to "instantiate" as many virtual devices > as needed, as many virtual CANbusses as needed and then interconnect > them the way they need. > We have 'gateway' devices, that sit b/w J1939 (boat engines) and > NMEA200, and 'console' devices that are connected to N2K only. > The goal is that every single physical devices is represented, during > automated tests, by a self-contained docker container. > I would like to containerise our simulators too (devices that generate > CAN messages, eg, engine, auto pilot, gps, ...) I'm just curious. Are you using kernel or user space j1939 implementation?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
