[9fans] Plan 9 on Routers?

[9fans] Plan 9 on Routers?

[Rahul Murmuria]

I was poking around for what it would take to get there. I found
this[1]. I am basically looking to have a way to do routing using Plan
9. You can already do that on any standard Linux using Quagga[2] based
on GNU Zebra.

Maybe there is a filesystem that exposes the kernel routing table to
user space for certain routing algorithm scripts to hack upon?

My objective is to be able to implement a new routing protocol on a
router created using a standard computer with multiple NIC cards,
maybe on a model P2P type network? I also would love to see what
having /net on a router would enable us to do.

Has anyone any experience with using Plan 9 on routers?

--
Rahul Murmuria

[1] http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/tip/1,289483,sid39_gci1102834,00.html
[2] http://www.quagga.net/docs/quagga.html#SEC3

[9fans] drawterm font

[Benjamin Huntsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 539 bytes --]

Not a big issue, but is it possible to change the default font in drawterm?
I imagine once logged in successfully, it could be changed via arguments to rio, but I'm talking about during the text-only login.

I ask because my 'bootes' account's profile doesn't start rio, so I occasionally use it to do command-line-only administration things, like adding users.  The default font tends to be a bit large though, given the size of my display...  I should mention that this is the Windows version...

Many thanks in advance!

-Ben


[-- Attachment #2: winmail.dat --]
[-- Type: application/ms-tnef, Size: 2590 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 on Routers?

[Devon H. O'Dell]

2009/3/24 Rahul Murmuria <rahul.is.also@gmail.com>:
> I was poking around for what it would take to get there. I found
> this[1]. I am basically looking to have a way to do routing using Plan
> 9. You can already do that on any standard Linux using Quagga[2] based
> on GNU Zebra.
>
> Maybe there is a filesystem that exposes the kernel routing table to
> user space for certain routing algorithm scripts to hack upon?
>
> My objective is to be able to implement a new routing protocol on a
> router created using a standard computer with multiple NIC cards,
> maybe on a model P2P type network? I also would love to see what
> having /net on a router would enable us to do.
>
> Has anyone any experience with using Plan 9 on routers?

Are you a student? This kind of stuff has interested me quite a bit in
Plan 9 (though more from a packet classification standpoint -- read:
firewalling), and it seems like a nifty project for GSoC.

As far as I'm aware, there is nothing similar to the OSPF/BGP/RIP
support directly in Plan 9. I am pretty sure Charles has written a RIP
daemon that is in sources somewhere.

--Devon

> --
> Rahul Murmuria
>
> [1] http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/tip/1,289483,sid39_gci1102834,00.html
> [2] http://www.quagga.net/docs/quagga.html#SEC3
>
>

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 on Routers?

[J.R. Mauro]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Devon H. O'Dell <devon.odell@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/3/24 Rahul Murmuria <rahul.is.also@gmail.com>:
>> I was poking around for what it would take to get there. I found
>> this[1]. I am basically looking to have a way to do routing using Plan
>> 9. You can already do that on any standard Linux using Quagga[2] based
>> on GNU Zebra.
>>
>> Maybe there is a filesystem that exposes the kernel routing table to
>> user space for certain routing algorithm scripts to hack upon?
>>
>> My objective is to be able to implement a new routing protocol on a
>> router created using a standard computer with multiple NIC cards,
>> maybe on a model P2P type network? I also would love to see what
>> having /net on a router would enable us to do.
>>
>> Has anyone any experience with using Plan 9 on routers?
>
> Are you a student? This kind of stuff has interested me quite a bit in
> Plan 9 (though more from a packet classification standpoint -- read:
> firewalling), and it seems like a nifty project for GSoC.
>
> As far as I'm aware, there is nothing similar to the OSPF/BGP/RIP
> support directly in Plan 9. I am pretty sure Charles has written a RIP
> daemon that is in sources somewhere.

RIP is fairly simplistic, I wonder if Plan 9 exposes enough
information via /net to actually implement OSPF. You need to know
load-balancing, bandwidth and "distance" metrics that RIP doesn't care
about.

>
> --Devon
>
>> --
>> Rahul Murmuria
>>
>> [1] http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/tip/1,289483,sid39_gci1102834,00.html
>> [2] http://www.quagga.net/docs/quagga.html#SEC3
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [9fans] drawterm font

[erik quanstrom]

> I ask because my 'bootes' account's profile doesn't start rio, so I
> occasionally use it to do command-line-only administration things,
> like adding users.

why not drawterm as yourself and "cpu -u bootes" if you can't access
the console via C?

- erik

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 on Routers?

[erik quanstrom]

> Maybe there is a filesystem that exposes the kernel routing table to
> user space for certain routing algorithm scripts to hack upon?

#I publishes routes in iproute, typically bound so that
this appears as /net/iproute.  that's probablly a good start.

- erik

Re: [9fans] drawterm font

[Russ Cox]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Benjamin Huntsman
<BHuntsman@mail2.cu-portland.edu> wrote:
> Not a big issue, but is it possible to change the default font in drawterm?

no; the bitmaps for the ascii characters are embedded
in the drawterm binary.  you could perhaps arrange
to build a different binary but it is easier to use rio.
you could start a rio with a single large window
automatically and then at least you'd have the
benefit of snarf/paste, scroll, etc.

russ

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 on Routers?

[Rahul Murmuria]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1912 bytes --]

Hi Devon!

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Devon H. O'Dell <devon.odell@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Are you a student? This kind of stuff has interested me quite a bit in
> Plan 9 (though more from a packet classification standpoint -- read:
> firewalling), and it seems like a nifty project for GSoC.
>

Yes, I am a student. I qualify for GSoC but I was planning not to apply, as
from where I see it, that brings in restrictions to the independence of
thought. I am open to applying though, if this is a good enough (and small
enough) idea for SoC.

> As far as I'm aware, there is nothing similar to the OSPF/BGP/RIP
> support directly in Plan 9. I am pretty sure Charles has written a RIP
> daemon that is in sources somewhere.
>

/net on routers is something I have wanted for sometime now too. I am a
member of the Glendix project (http://www.glendix.org) and have discussed
the same ideas for Glendix recently.

I was told that Inferno has ventured into such waters before. Are you sure
there in no information on anyone trying Plan 9 on/as a Router?

> --Devon
>
>

@ Mauro

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 3:51 PM, J.R. Mauro <jrm8005@gmail.com> wrote:
> RIP is fairly simplistic, I wonder if Plan 9 exposes enough
> information via /net to actually implement OSPF. You need to know
> load-balancing, bandwidth and "distance" metrics that RIP doesn't care
> about.

I am willing to explore this area. Maybe if /net reaches every router, such
metrics can be retrieved and exchanged between the routers like other router
OSes do (or maybe better than they already do) ?

I am planning to understand JUNOS using the documentation on their website,
but I am not sure if I want to go though the CCNA books for Cisco IOS like
you recommended. I have hardly any prior experience in the area, but initial
design info finds me inclining towards JUNOS more.

--
Rahul Murmuria

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2199 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] drawterm font

[Benjamin Huntsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 318 bytes --]

>the bitmaps for the ascii characters are embedded in the drawterm binary.

That's libdraw/defont.c, right?  I'll see about swapping that around for latin1.7, my personal favorite, just for the heck of it, though for now, doing the single large window is more-or-less what I was after anyway.

Thanks!!

-Ben


[-- Attachment #2: winmail.dat --]
[-- Type: application/ms-tnef, Size: 2510 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 on Routers?

[J.R. Mauro]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Rahul Murmuria <rahul.is.also@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Devon!
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Devon H. O'Dell <devon.odell@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Are you a student? This kind of stuff has interested me quite a bit in
>> Plan 9 (though more from a packet classification standpoint -- read:
>> firewalling), and it seems like a nifty project for GSoC.
>>
>
> Yes, I am a student. I qualify for GSoC but I was planning not to apply, as
> from where I see it, that brings in restrictions to the independence of
> thought. I am open to applying though, if this is a good enough (and small
> enough) idea for SoC.
>
>> As far as I'm aware, there is nothing similar to the OSPF/BGP/RIP
>> support directly in Plan 9. I am pretty sure Charles has written a RIP
>> daemon that is in sources somewhere.
>>
>
> /net on routers is something I have wanted for sometime now too. I am a
> member of the Glendix project (http://www.glendix.org) and have discussed
> the same ideas for Glendix recently.
>
> I was told that Inferno has ventured into such waters before. Are you sure
> there in no information on anyone trying Plan 9 on/as a Router?
>
>> --Devon
>>
>>
>
> @ Mauro
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 3:51 PM, J.R. Mauro <jrm8005@gmail.com> wrote:
>> RIP is fairly simplistic, I wonder if Plan 9 exposes enough
>> information via /net to actually implement OSPF. You need to know
>> load-balancing, bandwidth and "distance" metrics that RIP doesn't care
>> about.
>
> I am willing to explore this area. Maybe if /net reaches every router, such
> metrics can be retrieved and exchanged between the routers like other router
> OSes do (or maybe better than they already do) ?
>
> I am planning to understand JUNOS using the documentation on their website,
> but I am not sure if I want to go though the CCNA books for Cisco IOS like
> you recommended. I have hardly any prior experience in the area, but initial
> design info finds me inclining towards JUNOS more.

As long as you understand what you need to implement the protocols,
the rest will fall into place. OSPF's spec is freely available, as is
RIP and BGP. There are some Cisco protocols that AFAIK are closed, but
I doubt you would need them.

>
> --
> Rahul Murmuria
>
>

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 on Routers?

[Bakul Shah]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:05:08 EDT Rahul Murmuria <rahul.is.also@gmail.com>  wrote:
> I am willing to explore this area. Maybe if /net reaches every router, such
> metrics can be retrieved and exchanged between the routers like other router
> OSes do (or maybe better than they already do) ?
>
> I am planning to understand JUNOS using the documentation on their website,
> but I am not sure if I want to go though the CCNA books for Cisco IOS like
> you recommended. I have hardly any prior experience in the area, but initial
> design info finds me inclining towards JUNOS more.

OSPF and BGP are not exactly SoC projects but one place to
start may be openospfd and openbgpd from www.openbgp.org.

For any serious work you will need more than what JUNOS
documentation can give you.

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 on Routers?

[Rahul Murmuria]

So, the bottom line is no one has really explored Plan 9 on routers.

It seems that /net/iproute is where I can start. It has a complete
interface for editing routes. What we need is a user space script that
implements routing, like http://www.openbgp.org/ does on OpenBSD.
Except that, it will only have to send add, delete and flush control
messages to the iproute file.

This is not quite as powerful as most routers do. I remember Mauro
mentioning that Cisco IOS provides, among other things, a more
fine-grained control over passwords and information-hiding to the
per-interface level. I wonder how that would be incorporated into Plan
9. Could namespaces come into picture here?

@ Devon:
About Packet Classification. I read that iptables is not needed on
Plan 9 because its "mount /net over the network" concept achieved
anonymity or transparency -- something along those lines. "There are
no logs about who is sending what, and that is a good thing".

I am not sure where exactly the packet classification idea fits in. I
read in the /proc documents that /proc/net provides useful information
about the network stack. There is this ip_conntrack which is used to
list / track network connections. I wonder what we would need to get
packet information and perform filtering. Is it desirable to get that
filtering to work if it already does not exist?


Thank you all for replying so far!
--
Rahul Murmuria

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 on Routers?

[erik quanstrom]

> It seems that /net/iproute is where I can start. It has a complete
> interface for editing routes. What we need is a user space script that
> implements routing, like http://www.openbgp.org/ does on OpenBSD.
> Except that, it will only have to send add, delete and flush control
> messages to the iproute file.

see  ipconfig(8).

> About Packet Classification. I read that iptables is not needed on
> Plan 9 because its "mount /net over the network" concept achieved
> anonymity or transparency -- something along those lines. "There are
> no logs about who is sending what, and that is a good thing".

that's not strictly true.  as long as you restrict your network to
plan 9 machines, it is possible to import /net from a gateway
machine and avoid sticky things like packet filtering.  there is
also ipmux (discussed in ip(3)).  i don't think ipmux has enough
rewriting (or state) to implement something like nat.

- erik

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 on Routers?

[Rahul Murmuria]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 7:20 PM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
>
> see  ipconfig(8).
>

ip/rip ... I wonder!

P.S.: Thanks for all the pointers...
-- 
Rahul Murmuria

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 on Routers?

[Eris Discordia]

> as long as you restrict your network to plan 9 machines, it is possible
> to import /net from a gateway machine and avoid sticky things like packet
> filtering.

Back to the future yet? May I suggest that the "sticky" packet filtering,
more generally packet manipulation, has crucial applications in any
packet-switched network (like... "the Net") and a certain OS's current lack
of facilities, out of the box, to deal with the problem does not
automatically mean the problem should be thrown out. Of course, in an
essentially sheltered world not having an IDS is as good as having one but,
you see, that's the world of a certain OS. Other OSes have to live in the
wild.

P.S. This is a get-back from the NAT thread.

--On Tuesday, March 24, 2009 7:20 PM -0400 erik quanstrom
<quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:

>> It seems that /net/iproute is where I can start. It has a complete
>> interface for editing routes. What we need is a user space script that
>> implements routing, like http://www.openbgp.org/ does on OpenBSD.
>> Except that, it will only have to send add, delete and flush control
>> messages to the iproute file.
>
> see  ipconfig(8).
>
>> About Packet Classification. I read that iptables is not needed on
>> Plan 9 because its "mount /net over the network" concept achieved
>> anonymity or transparency -- something along those lines. "There are
>> no logs about who is sending what, and that is a good thing".
>
> that's not strictly true.  as long as you restrict your network to
> plan 9 machines, it is possible to import /net from a gateway
> machine and avoid sticky things like packet filtering.  there is
> also ipmux (discussed in ip(3)).  i don't think ipmux has enough
> rewriting (or state) to implement something like nat.
>
> - erik
>

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 on Routers?

[Devon H. O'Dell]

2009/3/24 Rahul Murmuria <rahul.is.also@gmail.com>:
> @ Devon:
> About Packet Classification. I read that iptables is not needed on
> Plan 9 because its "mount /net over the network" concept achieved
> anonymity or transparency -- something along those lines. "There are
> no logs about who is sending what, and that is a good thing".

This is a flawed argument. If using Plan 9 as an edge router instead
of a bridge, it's imperative to have some sort of filtering. This
doesn't just apply to NAT situations (and even then, mounting /net
isn't really the same thing as NAT). There is ipmux, but as Eric says,
it's not fleshed out enough to implement NAT.

Eric also says: ``as long as you restrict your network to plan 9
machines, it is possible to import /net from a gateway machine and
avoid sticky things like packet filtering.'' This is a good idea in
theory, but in practice most machines are not Plan 9 and there's
almost always a need for a heterogeneous environment. Some would solve
this by porting the ability to `import /net' to other operating
systems. My feeling has always been that some sort of packet
filtration system should exist to make Plan 9 useful in routing in
such heterogeneous networks. It's easier to do and would facilitate
wider adoption (whether that's a good thing or not is always up for
debate).

> I am not sure where exactly the packet classification idea fits in. I
> read in the /proc documents that /proc/net provides useful information
> about the network stack. There is this ip_conntrack which is used to
> list / track network connections. I wonder what we would need to get
> packet information and perform filtering. Is it desirable to get that
> filtering to work if it already does not exist?

I believe I have a rudimentary and probably non-working (at this
point) packet filter in /n/sources/contrib/dho somewhere (it was
written at least 4 years ago). I think it's called ``nfil.''  I
believe it is desirable. Others disagree. Its usefulness is related
directly to its application, and without it, there's no way to test
Plan 9 in an environment in which it would be useful.

You said earlier ``I qualify for GSoC but I was planning not to apply,
as from where I see it, that brings in restrictions to the
independence of thought. I am open to applying though, if this is a
good enough (and small enough) idea for SoC.'' -- I'm not sure why you
think that the idea of the SoC project restricts independence of
thought -- I've certainly never seen it as such. While creating an
entire routing suite (such as Zebra/Quagga) is probably outside of the
scope of a 3 month project, I think a diligent student could probably
do something useful with OSPF or BGP. It's entirely possible that a 3
month project could consist of analyzing Plan 9's ability to function
in this environment and making changes to facilitate the
implementation of routing protocols. Or creating a packet filter. In
either case, I'd personally be excited to see this suggested as a SoC
project if it was well thought out. I've wanted to work with somebody
on Plan 9 as a routing device in networks for some time, at least in
the field of packet classification.

> Thank you all for replying so far!

No problem :)

--dho

> --
> Rahul Murmuria
>
>

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 on Routers?

[erik quanstrom]

> I believe I have a rudimentary and probably non-working (at this
> point) packet filter in /n/sources/contrib/dho somewhere (it was
> written at least 4 years ago). I think it's called ``nfil.''  I
> believe it is desirable. Others disagree. Its usefulness is related
> directly to its application, and without it, there's no way to test
> Plan 9 in an environment in which it would be useful.

why not extend the packet filtering capabilities of the existing
#I?

- erik

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 on Routers?

[Devon H. O'Dell]

2009/3/25 erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>:
>> I believe I have a rudimentary and probably non-working (at this
>> point) packet filter in /n/sources/contrib/dho somewhere (it was
>> written at least 4 years ago). I think it's called ``nfil.''  I
>> believe it is desirable. Others disagree. Its usefulness is related
>> directly to its application, and without it, there's no way to test
>> Plan 9 in an environment in which it would be useful.
>
> why not extend the packet filtering capabilities of the existing
> #I?

That's what it did, if I recall correctly.

--dho

> - erik

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 on Routers?

[jetskean]

On Mar 25, 6:14�am, rahul.is.a...@gmail.com (Rahul Murmuria) wrote:
> I was poking around for what it would take to get there. I found
> this[1]. I am basically looking to have a way to do routing using Plan
> 9. You can already do that on any standard Linux�using Quagga[2] based
> on GNU Zebra.
>
> Maybe there is a filesystem that exposes the kernel routing table to
> user space for certain routing algorithm scripts to hack upon?
>
> My objective is to be able to implement a new routing protocol on a
> router created using a standard computer with multiple NIC cards,
> maybe on a model P2P type network? I also would love to see what
> having /net on a router would enable us to do.
>

I didn't understand IP 'till I read the Plan9 source code. In my
opinion, it should replace the RFCs as the standard. If you can't
implement your *new* protocol with the existing interfaces, then I
suggest you should follow the linux route.

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 on Routers?

[andrey mirtchovski]

> I didn't understand IP 'till I read the Plan9 source code.

one can replace "IP" in that sentence with so many other things... i'm
really glad plan9 exists.

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 on Routers?

[Bakul Shah]

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:00:58 EDT "Devon H. O'Dell" <devon.odell@gmail.com>  wrote:
>                                                  While creating an
> entire routing suite (such as Zebra/Quagga) is probably outside of the
> scope of a 3 month project, I think a diligent student could probably
> do something useful with OSPF or BGP. It's entirely possible that a 3
> month project could consist of analyzing Plan 9's ability to function
> in this environment and making changes to facilitate the
> implementation of routing protocols. Or creating a packet filter.

Thinking a bit more about it, extending /net/iproute to allow
routing metrics may be what is needed for porting/building
something like openospfd or openbgpd.  Basically
/net/{iproute,ipifc} etc need to do more or less what a
routing socket does under *BSD (man 4 route).  Of course,
there may be other things missing in the p9 IP stack that may
get in the way but now I think porting something like
openospfd in a summer is doable.

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 on Routers?

[Devon H. O'Dell]

2009/3/25 Bakul Shah <bakul+plan9@bitblocks.com>:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:00:58 EDT "Devon H. O'Dell" <devon.odell@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>                                                  While creating an
>> entire routing suite (such as Zebra/Quagga) is probably outside of the
>> scope of a 3 month project, I think a diligent student could probably
>> do something useful with OSPF or BGP. It's entirely possible that a 3
>> month project could consist of analyzing Plan 9's ability to function
>> in this environment and making changes to facilitate the
>> implementation of routing protocols. Or creating a packet filter.
>
> Thinking a bit more about it, extending /net/iproute to allow
> routing metrics may be what is needed for porting/building
> something like openospfd or openbgpd.  Basically
> /net/{iproute,ipifc} etc need to do more or less what a
> routing socket does under *BSD (man 4 route).  Of course,
> there may be other things missing in the p9 IP stack that may
> get in the way but now I think porting something like
> openospfd in a summer is doable.

Yeah, that's what I meant to imply :) Thanks for clarifying that :)

--dho

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 on Routers?

[lucio]

> I've wanted to work with somebody
> on Plan 9 as a routing device in networks for some time, at least in
> the field of packet classification.

I'll be happy to help, too, if so desired, I have been playing with
IPFilters in a pretty serious way for many years (and ipfw before
that) and may well be able to contribute my experiences in this
field.

++L

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 on Routers?

[Devon H. O'Dell]

2009/3/26  <lucio@proxima.alt.za>:
>> I've wanted to work with somebody
>> on Plan 9 as a routing device in networks for some time, at least in
>> the field of packet classification.
>
> I'll be happy to help, too, if so desired, I have been playing with
> IPFilters in a pretty serious way for many years (and ipfw before
> that) and may well be able to contribute my experiences in this
> field.

Sweet. Perhaps I'll re-implement the hookable filters into 9vx. The
interface is a more difficult problem than a proof-of-concept filter
(which I've implemented a few times). Maybe we should talk about ideas
for rule lookups and the like off-list? I'll put it up as an idea
again this year as well, and see if anybody bites.

--dho

> ++L
>
>
>