[9fans] IL depreciated

[9fans] IL depreciated

[Burton Samograd]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 967 bytes --]

>From the IL Wikipedia page:

    As of the Fourth Edition of Plan 9, 2003, IL is deprecated in favor of TCP/IP because it doesn't handle long-distance connections well.

Does anybody still use IL?  It sounds like an interesting protocol and I'm wondering if anybody has or is still using it for either local network or internet usage.  And, given It's depreciation status, is it still available for use if one does want to use it?

--
Burton Samograd

________________________________
This e-mail, including accompanying communications and attachments, is strictly confidential and only for the intended recipient. Any retention, use or disclosure not expressly authorised by Markit is prohibited. This email is subject to all waivers and other terms at the following link: http://www.markit.com/en/about/legal/email-disclaimer.page

Please visit http://www.markit.com/en/about/contact/contact-us.page? for contact information on our offices worldwide.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2888 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] IL depreciated

[David du Colombier]

> Does anybody still use IL?  It sounds like an interesting protocol
> and I'm wondering if anybody has or is still using it for either
> local network or internet usage.  And, given It's depreciation
> status, is it still available for use if one does want to use it?

I still use IL on my local network, but that's mostly for fun.

You can easily add the IL protocol back to the kernel
by applying the following patches:

term% cd /
term% 9fs sources
term% ape/patch -p1 < /n/sources/contrib/djc/il/il-plan9.diff
term% ape/patch -p1 < /n/sources/contrib/djc/il/il-netlog.diff
term% ape/patch -p1 < /n/sources/contrib/djc/il/il-conf.diff

--
David du Colombier

Re: [9fans] IL depreciated

[Burton Samograd]

> I still use IL on my local network, but that's mostly for fun.

Does it offer the advantages claimed over TCP?  Do you think it  is even possible to run it over the internet anymore given the amount of filtering and such that is going on at the ISP level now?

--
Burton

This e-mail, including accompanying communications and attachments, is strictly confidential and only for the intended recipient. Any retention, use or disclosure not expressly authorised by Markit is prohibited. This email is subject to all waivers and other terms at the following link: http://www.markit.com/en/about/legal/email-disclaimer.page

Please visit http://www.markit.com/en/about/contact/contact-us.page? for contact information on our offices worldwide.

Re: [9fans] IL depreciated

[David du Colombier]

> Does it offer the advantages claimed over TCP?  Do you think it  is
> even possible to run it over the internet anymore given the amount of
> filtering and such that is going on at the ISP level now?

I think the main advantage of IL over TCP is its simplicity.
However, I wouldn't recommend using it beyond fun or historical
interest. Unless of course if you are using the old file server.

I used IL over Internet few years ago and, as far as I recall,
it worked fine. My ISP doesn't do any sort of protocol filtering.

The most common issue you are likely to encounter is when
you have to pass through a NAT. NAT implementations don't
usually understand the IL protocol and thus doesn't know
how to translate the ports and recalculate the checksum.

--
David du Colombier

Re: [9fans] IL depreciated

[erik quanstrom]

On Fri May 11 12:43:42 EDT 2012, burton.samograd@markit.com wrote:
> > I still use IL on my local network, but that's mostly for fun.
> >
> Does it offer the advantages claimed over TCP?  Do you think it is

yes, it does.

- erik

Re: [9fans] IL depreciated

[Skip Tavakkolian]

the set is at least as large as the number of people who have kenfs.

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Burton Samograd
<burton.samograd@markit.com> wrote:
> From the IL Wikipedia page:
>
>
>
>     As of the Fourth Edition of Plan 9, 2003, IL is deprecated in favor of
> TCP/IP because it doesn't handle long-distance connections well.
>
>
>
> Does anybody still use IL?  It sounds like an interesting protocol and I’m
> wondering if anybody has or is still using it for either local network or
> internet usage.  And, given It’s depreciation status, is it still available
> for use if one does want to use it?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Burton Samograd
>
>
> ________________________________
> This e-mail, including accompanying communications and attachments, is
> strictly confidential and only for the intended recipient. Any retention,
> use or disclosure not expressly authorised by Markit is prohibited. This
> email is subject to all waivers and other terms at the following link:
> http://www.markit.com/en/about/legal/email-disclaimer.page
>
> Please visit http://www.markit.com/en/about/contact/contact-us.page? for
> contact information on our offices worldwide.

Re: [9fans] IL depreciated

[Connor Lane Smith]

Hey,

The explanation for IL's deprecation is originally from the Plan 9
fourth release notes [1]:

> We are phasing out the IL protocol since it doesn’t handle long-distance
> connections well (and long-distance networks don’t handle it well, either).

Does anyone know what it is about IL's design that means it doesn't
handle long-distance connections well?

[1]: http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/release4.html

Thanks,
cls

Re: [9fans] IL depreciated

[Iruatã Souza]

http://code.google.com/p/plan9front/source/detail?r=f31b07b59320acda22829bb12bac497cb5a29a69

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Connor Lane Smith <cls@lubutu.com> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> The explanation for IL's deprecation is originally from the Plan 9
> fourth release notes [1]:
>
>> We are phasing out the IL protocol since it doesn’t handle long-distance
>> connections well (and long-distance networks don’t handle it well, either).
>
> Does anyone know what it is about IL's design that means it doesn't
> handle long-distance connections well?
>
> [1]: http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/release4.html
>
> Thanks,
> cls
>

Re: [9fans] IL depreciated

[erik quanstrom]

>
> Does anyone know what it is about IL's design that means it doesn't
> handle long-distance connections well?

i can't think of anything that's inherent or fundamental to the protocol.
on the other hand, i don't use il over the internet since it's not encrypted.
tls over the internet makes much more sense to me.

- erik

Re: [9fans] IL depreciated

[David du Colombier]

> i can't think of anything that's inherent or fundamental to the
> protocol. on the other hand, i don't use il over the internet since
> it's not encrypted. tls over the internet makes much more sense to me.

Can't you use TLS over IL?

--
David du Colombier

Re: [9fans] IL depreciated

[erik quanstrom]

On Fri May 11 14:54:37 EDT 2012, 0intro@gmail.com wrote:
> > i can't think of anything that's inherent or fundamental to the
> > protocol. on the other hand, i don't use il over the internet since
> > it's not encrypted. tls over the internet makes much more sense to me.
>
> Can't you use TLS over IL?

i think tls only requires reliable, in-order.
it has it's own record layer.  so yes, good point,
i think you could.

- erik

Re: [9fans] IL depreciated

[Burton Samograd]

> i don't use il over the internet since it's not encrypted.
> tls over the internet makes much more sense to me.

Is there no encryption support for 9P?

- erik


This e-mail, including accompanying communications and attachments, is strictly confidential and only for the intended recipient. Any retention, use or disclosure not expressly authorised by Markit is prohibited. This email is subject to all waivers and other terms at the following link: http://www.markit.com/en/about/legal/email-disclaimer.page

Please visit http://www.markit.com/en/about/contact/contact-us.page? for contact information on our offices worldwide.

Re: [9fans] IL depreciated

[Burton Samograd]

Oops, that wasn't from eric...

> i don't use il over the internet since it's not encrypted.
> tls over the internet makes much more sense to me.

Is there no encryption support for 9P?

--
Burton Samograd

This e-mail, including accompanying communications and attachments, is strictly confidential and only for the intended recipient. Any retention, use or disclosure not expressly authorised by Markit is prohibited. This email is subject to all waivers and other terms at the following link: http://www.markit.com/en/about/legal/email-disclaimer.page

Please visit http://www.markit.com/en/about/contact/contact-us.page? for contact information on our offices worldwide.

Re: [9fans] IL depreciated

[David du Colombier]

> Is there no encryption support for 9P?

cpu(1), import(4) and exportfs(4) supports optional
encryption using the ssl(3) record layer.

--
David du Colombier

Re: [9fans] IL depreciated

[erik quanstrom]

On Fri May 11 17:04:04 EDT 2012, 0intro@gmail.com wrote:
> > Is there no encryption support for 9P?
>
> cpu(1), import(4) and exportfs(4) supports optional
> encryption using the ssl(3) record layer.

using tcp.  there is no reason support for tls/il/ip couldn't
have been added, but it was not.

- erik

Re: [9fans] IL depreciated

[Charles Forsyth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 204 bytes --]

>Does anyone know what it is about IL's design that means it doesn't
>handle long-distance connections well?

congestion control, and NATP. the latter isn't IL's design, but IP's, or
NAT's, or both.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 639 bytes --]