Hi, On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 02:07:26PM -0600, Joshua Stratton wrote:
> If anyone hasn't read up on how Plan9 runs their network stack, Probably most of us haven't... > they have a separate directory of each connection. An example in the > paper is shown as the following, > > # cd /net/tcp/2 <--- this is like the second TCP connection > # ls -l > ctl > data > listen > local > remote > status Looks pretty reasonable :-) > They use an interesting system to control their connections using > ASCII strings. For example changing the packet size would be as > simple as "2400 > ctl" would change the packet size to 2400 (some > syntax to that effect). Indeed, that's a very powerful property IMHO -- I wish the Hurd in general was more like Plan9 in this regard. > They say this approach makes it compatible with remote applications > that can manipulate servers through a common interface. Plan9 focuses their marketing totally on network transparency these days. But it's not the only situation where it is beneficial -- the ability to use common tools for all kinds of interfaces is very useful in general. > Supposedly all network connections use this interface (TCP, UDP, LP). What is LP?... > However, I'm not sure if I like the directory structure they use. I > would think the network interface should be shown like > > /net/eth0/tcp/2 > > It might be worthwhile--but possible bad style?--to duplicate both > hierachies so on may browse the connections by device or generally. This sounds perfectly reasonable. Don't see any bad style in there :-) -antrik- PS. http://learn.to/quote :-)
