Re: [9fans] Multi-stack mail problem.

[Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>]

On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 09:20:10AM +0100, Charles Forsyth wrote:
>
> the stacks #I0, #I1, ... are all independent and have their own routing tables.

Good point, bad idea...  I guess IP will require IP routes and other
things user other routes, so maybe it's not such a bad idea.

> you don't use separate stacks just to support several physical interfaces.
> you use separate stacks to provide complete isolation of each from the others.

... I was wondering how one makes a router out of a Plan 9 host.  This
bit I find a little out of the ordinary.

> thus you still need to control which routing tables dial checked.
> furthermore, one or more stacks can be imported from another machine.
> furthermore, dial works across a range of protocols including non-internet ones.
> routing tables are internet-specific.
>
Well, by that name.  Some sort of routing has to exist, no matter the
protocol, at best it's totally trivial.

> thus you still need to search somehow through the name space, not #I...
> nor can routing tables as such be used.
>
So it's a generic solution one needs to find, as you point out.  It
helps if the available information is associated with the interface,
which is a namespace issue.  Perhaps /net/ndb can be used, maybe a
full routing only database?

> on the other hand, {/net /net.alt} only works for dial for two interfaces,
> which does suggest that Something Must Be Done.

It should not be necessary to break the model, from

	net!dest!port

we want to resolve to an interface, which is the leading field, is
it not?  But it is easy to fall into the trap of "all the world is
IP".

++L