> i think it's a *great* idea, but it doesn't give you the same things
> nat does and isn't useful in the same cases. but i'd love to be able
> to import my plan9 /net from my OS X box.
It seems a pretty universal opinion that were other OSs
capable of importing a Plan9 /net, their _functioning_ t
i think it's a *great* idea, but it doesn't give you the same things
nat does and isn't useful in the same cases. but i'd love to be able
to import my plan9 /net from my OS X box.
2009/4/15 Anthony Sorace :
> the idea is interesting, but it's a compliment, not a replacement.
> there's plenty of situations where installing something on all your
> hosts is either impractical or undesirable; centralizing the work in
> network infrastructure is often a big win. doing what you de
2009/4/15 Nathaniel W Filardo :
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 02:03:35PM +0200, Patrick Kristiansen wrote:
>> I'm thinking of writing a NAT implementation for plan 9.
>
> I would suggest instead that it might be easier to write an adaptor program
> for non-Plan 9 hosts which made their network stacks t
the idea is interesting, but it's a compliment, not a replacement.
there's plenty of situations where installing something on all your
hosts is either impractical or undesirable; centralizing the work in
network infrastructure is often a big win. doing what you describe
hits a different set of use
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 02:03:35PM +0200, Patrick Kristiansen wrote:
> I'm thinking of writing a NAT implementation for plan 9.
I would suggest instead that it might be easier to write an adaptor program
for non-Plan 9 hosts which made their network stacks talk to a /net. That
is, you'd want a pr
2009/4/15 Devon H. O'Dell
>
>
> I think #2 would be an easily testable and maybe more `correct' way to
> do this in Plan 9. I think doing an implementation directly in the IP
> path is easier, overall, but that's where my experience lies anyway.
>
Thanks, I'll try that.
>
>
> > Do you have any a
> Hello 9fans.
> I'm thinking of writing a NAT implementation for plan 9. I have searched the
> archives and I'm not quite sure how to get started.
>
> As I see it there could be three ways of approaching this:
>
> 1. User space implementation using ipmux
> 2. User space using pkt interfaces in i
2009/4/15 Patrick Kristiansen :
> Hello 9fans.
> I'm thinking of writing a NAT implementation for plan 9. I have searched the
> archives and I'm not quite sure how to get started.
Hi Patrick,
> As I see it there could be three ways of approaching this:
> 1. User space implementation using ipmux
>
Hello 9fans.
I'm thinking of writing a NAT implementation for plan 9. I have searched the
archives and I'm not quite sure how to get started.
As I see it there could be three ways of approaching this:
1. User space implementation using ipmux
2. User space using pkt interfaces in ipifc.
3. Kernel
10 matches
Mail list logo
