[Ns-developers] a few more tap device comments

[Gustavo Carneiro]

2009/6/6 Tom Henderson <tomh at tomh.org>

>
>
>> Gustavo,
>> Although I suggested the name TapNetDevice, in reviewing this today, I
>> noticed that it is really behaving like a Tun device instead of a Tap device
>> (i.e. it is not adding an Ethernet header).
>>
>> So, would you be amenable to naming it TunNetDevice instead?
>>
>> I also thought that the example was a bit unusual because the TunNetDevice
>> handler is creating a Udp socket to send the datagram out, instead of just a
>> raw socket.  What do you think about changing it to a raw socket?
>>
>>
> Gustavo,
> I had a couple more comments:
>
> - last release, Craig tried to add a tcpdump-like trace source consistently
> across all net devices, called PromiscSniffer.  Any concern with adding it
> here too?


Not at all.


>
>
> - I wasn't sure about how users were expected to call Receive() and
> PromiscReceive().  In other NetDevices, there is a single Receive() function
> and it calls both the rxCallback and the promiscRxCallback. Here, those
> methods are separated.  Are users supposed to call both of these methods, or
> pick one?  Was there a reason you didn't call the promiscRxCallback from
> within Receive()?


No doubt Receive() should also be calling the promiscRxCallback, good catch.

To get completely rid of PromiscReceive, I'm not sure.  I guess I am ok with
it, we can always add it later if we need it.

Thanks for the comments.

Regards,

-- 
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro
INESC Porto, Telecommunications and Multimedia Unit
"The universe is always one step beyond logic." -- Frank Herbert