From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 17:56:31 +0200 From: Lucio De Re To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Mail exchanger Message-ID: <20040802175631.E9108@cackle.proxima.alt.za> References: <20040802173550.D9108@cackle.proxima.alt.za> <05a04a8a2697913ad8bef3dc5a9cb5b6@vitanuova.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <05a04a8a2697913ad8bef3dc5a9cb5b6@vitanuova.com>; from C H Forsyth on Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 04:49:52PM +0100 Topicbox-Message-UUID: d0beec3a-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 04:49:52PM +0100, C H Forsyth wrote: > > if so, i wondered why you didn't just add the extra > interface as an extra interface on the existing IP stack, in which > case you don't need to mess with net.alt. for instance, > ip/ipconfig ether /net/ether1 > binds a new device interface to the existing IP stack, > with the address parameters you give. you might > also possibly set iprouting on the interfaces > if you want the server to do that. Sounds like a wonderful idea, if only I could understand it. Nearly ten years down the line and me believing I'm of above average intelligence and Plan 9 still causes me to doubt my sanity :-( Let me mull over this, I certainly would like the suggested simplicity, I just hope I can make sense of it. ++L