On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 02:23:18PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 09:16:42AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-10-05 at 16:50 -0400, Matt Benjamin wrote: > > > Hi Stefan, > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I have previously submitted patches that implement NFS client and nfsd > > > > support for the AF_VSOCK address family. In order for this to be > > > > acceptable for merge the AF_VSOCK transport needs to be defined in an > > > > IETF RFC. Below is a draft RFC that defines ONC RPC over AF_VSOCK. > > > > > > > > My patches use netid "vsock" but "tcpv" has also been suggested. This draft > > > > RFC still uses "vsock" but I'll update it to "tcpv" if there is consensus. > > > > > > > > > > I think "vsock" is the appropriate netid, not "tcpv." Stream > > > orientation, if anything, is the general category containing TCP and > > > VSOCK, not the reverse. But really I think it's just more clear. > > > > > > > Agreed. VSOCK is its own thing. It bears some resemblance to TCP, but > > calling it tcpv would be confusing. IIRC, Chuck only proposed that when > > we were discussing an alternative transport that would look more like a > > typical network. > > > > BTW: Does VSOCK have a connectionless mode, analogous to UDP? If so, > > then it may be nice to consider what the netid for that might look like > > as well, before we settle on any names. > > Yes, you can use SOCK_STREAM or SOCK_DGRAM when using vsock. VMware has implemented both SOCK_STREAM and SOCK_DGRAM. The virtio-vsock and Hyper-V drivers implement only SOCK_STREAM at the moment. In the future they may support SOCK_DGRAM if there are use cases. Stefan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
