From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <1b8ec44dfa5f59ee14d999cf2d9e9d44@quanstro.net>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:17:02 -0500
In-Reply-To: <D78CFB3A781C23E43375F211@[192.168.1.2]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Do we have a catalog of 9P servers?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 46561a76-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> And what is the "IP world?" Aren't you part of it? Does your network use a
> different transport/network layer protocol than TCP/IP? IL is dead--just in
> case you were thinking of it--because to re-invent the wheel was eventually
> perceived redundant.

yes.  several.  il/ip being one of them.

the trite "not reinventing the wheel" is countered with
the equally trite "use the right tool for the job".  both
avoid the point of carefully evaluating the engineering
problem.

tcp is the perl of networking.

> I see no reason why implementing IPv6 for Plan 9 has to be easier than the
> same task on *BSD. What does Plan 9's dubious claim to superior design as
> an OS have to do with implementing a network layer protocol?

i think it is a bit easier.  the plan 9 kernel is simplier.
but that's beside the point.  plan 9 network does more
with less than bsd.  /net is more expressive than sockets.
the dial interface is quite elegant.  plan 9 telnet works
just fine with il and most other connection-based protocols.

- erik