From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Mon,  2 Aug 2004 18:08:42 +0200
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Mail exchanger
Message-ID: <20040802180841.F9108@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: d0c54c6a-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 <addresses>

Is this the type of idea (explicitly listing each step)?

	bind -a '#l0' /net
	bind -a '#l1' /net
	bind -a '#I' /net
	ip/ipconfig ether /net/ether0 172.24.16.12 255.255.0.0
	ip/ipconfig -g 196.30.44.1 ether /net/ether1 196.30.44.147 255.255.255.0
	echo 'add 10.17.13.224 255.255.255.240 172.24.16.129' > /net/iproute
	echo 'add 172.16.16.0 255.255.248.0 172.24.16.129' > /net/iproute
	echo 'add 196.25.217.192 255.255.255.248 172.24.16.129' > /net/iproute
	echo 'add 10.17.13.224 255.255.255.240 172.24.16.129' > /net/iproute
	echo 'add 172.16.16.0 255.255.248.0 172.24.16.129' > /net/iproute
	echo 'add 192.168.30.16 255.255.255.248 172.24.16.129' > /net/iproute
	echo 'add 196.25.217.192 255.255.255.248 172.24.16.129' > /net/iproute
	ndb/cs -s
	ndb/dns -rs

The latter (sorry about the unnecessary details) being the exceptional
routes.  And then all the subnets can co-exist in /lib/ndb/local?

Why do I find it hard to believe that it could be this simple?

++L

PS: I would then only need to add the #l1 bind in the namespace
template.  But if I wanted different services on different interfaces
I would have to separate out the networks, wouldn't I?

PPS: Thanks, Charles, if I don't hear further from you, I'll have to
give this a definite try.