[9fans] two nics 8139

[9fans] two nics 8139

[Adriano Verardo]

Hi, all.
I have 2 nics rtl8139, both successfully probed as l0 and l1 but
in /net I see only the interface ether0 to l0 and /net.alt is empty.

Where can I find a doc about how to configure 2 tcp stacks and/or
to use 2 nics through the same stack ?

Thanks in advance

adriano

Re: [9fans] two nics 8139

[Skip Tavakkolian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 656 bytes --]

the usual suspects (bind, ipconfig, cs, dns)

# second ethernet card
bind -b '#l1' /net.alt
bind -b '#I1' /net.alt
ip/ipconfig -x /net.alt ether /net.alt/ether1
ndb/cs -x /net.alt -f /lib/ndb/external
ndb/dns -sx /net.alt -f /lib/ndb/external



On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Adriano Verardo
<adriano.verardo@mail.com>wrote:

> Hi, all.
> I have 2 nics rtl8139, both successfully probed as l0 and l1 but
> in /net I see only the interface ether0 to l0 and /net.alt is empty.
>
> Where can I find a doc about how to configure 2 tcp stacks and/or
> to use 2 nics through the same stack ?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> adriano
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1147 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] two nics 8139

[Charles Forsyth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 263 bytes --]

On 13 March 2014 15:44, Skip Tavakkolian <skip.tavakkolian@gmail.com> wrote:

> # second ethernet card
> bind -b '#l1' /net.alt
>

You can also add it as another ether on the same IP stack: bind -b '#l1'
/net
and then use ipconfig to configure it there.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 619 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] two nics 8139

[Adriano Verardo]

Charles Forsyth ha scritto:
>
> On 13 March 2014 15:44, Skip Tavakkolian <skip.tavakkolian@gmail.com
> <mailto:skip.tavakkolian@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     # second ethernet card
>     bind -b '#l1' /net.alt
>
>
> You can also add it as another ether on the same IP stack: bind -b
> '#l1' /net
> and then use ipconfig to configure it there.
ok, thanks.
If the goal is to manage two separate networks, one local and the other
for remote/restricted
access only, its better to have 2 stacks or 2 nics under the same stack ?

adriano

Re: [9fans] two nics 8139

[erik quanstrom]

> ok, thanks.  If the goal is to manage two separate networks, one local
> and the other for remote/restricted access only, its better to have 2
> stacks or 2 nics under the same stack ?

i don't know about "better", but it's certainly easier to think about
two seperate stacks.  one can be certain (absent bridging) that the
stacks don't interact, and the services won't leak between them.

- erik

Re: [9fans] two nics 8139

[Adriano Verardo]

erik quanstrom ha scritto:
>> ok, thanks.  If the goal is to manage two separate networks, one local
>> and the other for remote/restricted access only, its better to have 2
>> stacks or 2 nics under the same stack ?
> i don't know about "better", but it's certainly easier to think about
> two seperate stacks.  one can be certain (absent bridging) that the
> stacks don't interact, and the services won't leak between them.
>
> - erik
>
>
ok, thank you very much Erik
adriano

Re: [9fans] two nics 8139

[Charles Forsyth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 311 bytes --]

On 13 March 2014 16:09, Adriano Verardo <adriano.verardo@mail.com> wrote:

> If the goal is to manage two separate networks, one local and the other
> for remote/restricted
> access only, its better to have 2 stacks or 2 nics under the same stack ?
>

i've always used two stacks to keep them separate.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 663 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] two nics 8139

[Adriano Verardo]

Charles Forsyth ha scritto:
>
> On 13 March 2014 16:09, Adriano Verardo <adriano.verardo@mail.com
> <mailto:adriano.verardo@mail.com>> wrote:
>
>     If the goal is to manage two separate networks, one local and the
>     other for remote/restricted
>     access only, its better to have 2 stacks or 2 nics under the same
>     stack ?
>
>
> i've always used two stacks to keep them separate.
Ok, I'll do the same.
Thank you again, Charles
adriano

Re: [9fans] two nics 8139

[Adriano Verardo]

Skip Tavakkolian ha scritto:
> the usual suspects (bind, ipconfig, cs, dns)
>
> # second ethernet card
> bind -b '#l1' /net.alt
> bind -b '#I1' /net.alt
> ip/ipconfig -x /net.alt ether /net.alt/ether1
> ndb/cs -x /net.alt -f /lib/ndb/external
> ndb/dns -sx /net.alt -f /lib/ndb/external
>
I will re-read all that docs.
Thanks a lot for the hints, Skip
adriano
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Adriano Verardo
> <adriano.verardo@mail.com <mailto:adriano.verardo@mail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi, all.
>     I have 2 nics rtl8139, both successfully probed as l0 and l1 but
>     in /net I see only the interface ether0 to l0 and /net.alt is empty.
>
>     Where can I find a doc about how to configure 2 tcp stacks and/or
>     to use 2 nics through the same stack ?
>
>     Thanks in advance
>
>     adriano
>
>
>

Re: [9fans] two nics 8139

[Bakul Shah]

> bind -b '#l1' /net.alt
> bind -b '#I1' /net.alt
> ip/ipconfig -x /net.alt ether /net.alt/ether1
> ndb/cs -x /net.alt -f /lib/ndb/external
> ndb/dns -sx /net.alt -f /lib/ndb/external

So what do you do when you have N ethernet ports and you want
to forward packets between these ports either @ layer2
(bridge) or @ layer3 (route)?

Re: [9fans] two nics 8139

[erik quanstrom]

On Thu Mar 13 14:53:52 EDT 2014, bakul@bitblocks.com wrote:
> > bind -b '#l1' /net.alt
> > bind -b '#I1' /net.alt
> > ip/ipconfig -x /net.alt ether /net.alt/ether1
> > ndb/cs -x /net.alt -f /lib/ndb/external
> > ndb/dns -sx /net.alt -f /lib/ndb/external
>
> So what do you do when you have N ethernet ports and you want
> to forward packets between these ports either @ layer2
> (bridge) or @ layer3 (route)?

if you want to do layer 3, just put them in the same ip stack.
if you want to do layer 2, use bridge(3).

- erik

Re: [9fans] two nics 8139

[Charles Forsyth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 335 bytes --]

On 13 March 2014 18:52, Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> wrote:

> So what do you do when you have N ethernet ports and you want
> to forward packets between these ports either @ layer2
> (bridge) or @ layer3 (route)?
>

You don't separate them but put them in the same name space and use
bridge(3) or routing as appropriate.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 684 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] two nics 8139

[Skip Tavakkolian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 515 bytes --]

there is also nat

http://www.9legacy.org/9legacy/doc/nat/readme



On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> wrote:

> > bind -b '#l1' /net.alt
> > bind -b '#I1' /net.alt
> > ip/ipconfig -x /net.alt ether /net.alt/ether1
> > ndb/cs -x /net.alt -f /lib/ndb/external
> > ndb/dns -sx /net.alt -f /lib/ndb/external
>
> So what do you do when you have N ethernet ports and you want
> to forward packets between these ports either @ layer2
> (bridge) or @ layer3 (route)?
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 991 bytes --]