From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <5321DACC.7020507@mail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:20:28 +0100
From: Adriano Verardo <adriano.verardo@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1;
	rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/27.0 SeaMonkey/2.24
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
References: <5321CDA7.5030907@mail.com>	<CAJSxfmJn08Zp8AGzt7TFSEJ903jXSDeemAZmexKOVzX2J_0Erg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAOw7k5iX_yKb4oeQanwGqQgqv1VfKwm-MgrigbODcFqhS8-fvQ@mail.gmail.com>	<5321D837.2020806@mail.com>
	<4221cdfdc2e3b6bcea8cae72323bbaa8@ladd.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <4221cdfdc2e3b6bcea8cae72323bbaa8@ladd.quanstro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] two nics 8139
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c9de7aec-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

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