Hi,
On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 12:24:56AM +0200, zhengda wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So if I'm right, the filter translator has to implement the RPC in
> device.defs to communicate with the client and it calls the RPC to
> communicate with the multiplexer.
Yes. The filter simply proxies the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note however that making the multiplexer handle rules both from the
clients and from filter translators is not trivial. It requires figuring
out how to merge rules correctly; it requires making sure that the
client can never override rules set by the filter translator.
T
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 04:44:36PM +0200, zhengda wrote:
> I said the multiplexer (or the hypervisor, I'm not very sensitive to
> the name:-) can have multiple interfaces and there was a "filter"
> behind every interface. The filter here actually means the BPF
> implementation (maybe this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Last time on IRC, if I understand it correctly, you said the
optimization is to make all packets go through the kernel, and the
kernel dispatches the packet with the BPF.
Not quite. The idea was that if you have a multiplexer sitting directly
on the kernel interfac
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:11:12PM +0200, zhengda wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> If that is the case, we would again need a proxy for the master
>> device port, which would forward open() on the network device, but
>> block all others.
>>
> Do you mean something like a translator who
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"root could delegate access to the real network interface, and the
user could run a hypervisor"? How do we do it? create another program
that is run by root and that communicates with the hypervisor?
To be honest, I don't know the details. In a capability system,
Hi,
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:26:19PM +0200, zhengda wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm creating the proxy of the process server. Hopefully, it's not too
> difficult.
Well, if you run into serious problems, you can postpone this for now
and work on the other stuff... But I hope you can get
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed, I was thinking only about subhurds here... You are perfectly
right that if we want to be able to use the hypervisor for pfinets
running in the same Hurd instance as the hypervisor, we need some method
to make the pfinets connect to the virtual interface provided
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:36:59PM +0200, zhengda wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 10:12:21PM +0200, zhengda wrote:
>>>If pfinet can open the interface with device_open(), I think we
>>>need to write another program like boot to give pfinet the
>>>pse
zhengda wrote:
Hi,
Here are my current problems:
1. How many pfinet servers are allowed to connect to one hypervisor?
If only one pfinet server is allowed to connect to one hypervisor,
hypervisors must communicate with each other to route packets sent
by pfinet servers.
If
Hi,
Here are my current problems:
1. How many pfinet servers are allowed to connect to one hypervisor?
If only one pfinet server is allowed to connect to one hypervisor,
hypervisors must communicate with each other to route packets sent
by pfinet servers.
If several pfinet s
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 10:12:21PM +0200, zhengda wrote:
> 1) hypervisor creates a virtual network interface
>How is the programming interface like for the virtual network
>interface? I mean, is the pfinet still able to open it with
>device_open()?
Well, as I mentioned in the or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 04:17:37PM +0200, Zheng Da wrote:
step 1. A mechanism for different pfinet servers to communicate with each
other:
There are two possible solutions to reach the goal at least: the BPF
translator and the hypervisor.
For the approach of the
zhengda wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Well, I must remind you that you were supposed to provide a schedule in
your application... I accepted your not doing so, because the task
description was very unspecific, and you were not really in a position
to provide a schedule without discussing t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Well, I must remind you that you were supposed to provide a schedule in
your application... I accepted your not doing so, because the task
description was very unspecific, and you were not really in a position
to provide a schedule without discussing things first; but
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 04:17:37PM +0200, Zheng Da wrote:
> step 1. A mechanism for different pfinet servers to communicate with each
> other:
> There are two possible solutions to reach the goal at least: the BPF
> translator and the hypervisor.
Right. You never followed up on the discussio
Hi everyone,
To implement the network virtualization, several pfinet servers must run at
the same time, and they must communicate with each other. Meanwhile, the
process on Hurd can choose its own pfinet server.
step 1. A mechanism for different pfinet servers to communicate with each
other:
Ther
17 matches
Mail list logo
