Re: [9fans] 9p over raw ethernet - ?

Re: [9fans] 9p over raw ethernet - ?

[presotto]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 784 bytes --]

It is of course possible.  You'ld have to change (or make a new version)
of IL to know about the ether layer instead of IP addresses for
demultiplexing.  In general I think you could just write a devilether.c
that provided a user interface that looks like /net/il.

I had done something similar (devnonet) years ago and decided it
was a bad idea.  That was largely because this was before ether
switches and I could only access machines on the local ether.
It might be time to revisit it.

On the other hand, one should be able to saturate an ether
now with IL over IP so I'm not sure I see the need to
get rid of IP.  It represents so little of the packet overhead.
The X-kernel did this protocol minimalization and noone ever
ended up using it, not even the authors.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1747 bytes --]

From: Wladimir Mutel <mwg@alkar.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: [9fans] 9p over raw ethernet - ?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:58:34 GMT
Message-ID: <8kifrm$20ah$2@pandora.alkar.net>

	Greetings,

	IL is 9P over IP. IP, in turn, may be over Ethernet or over PPP.
	The question is could we drop IP layer and address directly by
	Ethernet MAC-addresses or PPP endpoint IDs ? I guess there
	should be a practical way to implement it under Plan9 , but I do
	not know it myself.
	
	Please suggest. Thanks for your answers.

--
mwg@alkar.net

[9fans] 9p over raw ethernet - ?

[Wladimir Mutel]

	Greetings,

	IL is 9P over IP. IP, in turn, may be over Ethernet or over PPP.
	The question is could we drop IP layer and address directly by
	Ethernet MAC-addresses or PPP endpoint IDs ? I guess there
	should be a practical way to implement it under Plan9 , but I do
	not know it myself.
	
	Please suggest. Thanks for your answers.

--
mwg@alkar.net