From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Multi-stack mail problem.
Message-ID: <20030930135113.I8268@cackle.proxima.alt.za>
References: <968b6a09adf6724f3bdd4525efee97a1@vitanuova.com> <009701c38738$06a39cd0$c901a8c0@cc77109e>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <009701c38738$06a39cd0$c901a8c0@cc77109e>; from Bruce Ellis on Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 07:48:16PM +1000
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:51:14 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 574ecd6c-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 07:48:16PM +1000, Bruce Ellis wrote:
>
> froggie uses BPMP (brucee's pci mailbox protocol) to serve the
> subservient frog legs.  it screams.  dial is the way to go.  i have
> services that bind a dir onto /net and get dialed just fine.
>
I detect a degree of consensus: dial is where the routing needs to
be determined.  Now we need to figure out how to tech dial all
sorts of independent tricks to establish the relationships between
destinations and interfaces (network stacks).

I don't think we need to worry unduly about the reverse: once a
packet has arrived over an interface, it can be assumed that that
interface is the right one for the connection.  If it can't be,
one can make special arrangements.

*** disclaimer - loose cannon below :-) ***

Maybe we can have a "reach" file or control command in each protocol
stack that returns a positive or negative response when queried as
to whether a given "address" can be reached through that interface.
How clever such a facility could be is for better designers than
I to figure out.

I imagine that some "hints" could be added to speed things up whenever
possible.

++L