Re: [9fans] Question on /net with respect to anonymity

[Rahul Murmuria <rahul.is.also@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Tim Newsham <newsham@lava.net> wrote:
>> However, the absence of ipfilters / iptables means, the gateways
>> really have no history information and no control over who is having
>> access to either of its interfaces.
>
> If I mounted my gateway's /net onto my machine, I would expect
> that the gateway would do no extra filtering on my connections
> than it did on any of its own connections. That's a feature,
> not a bug.
>

Ditto. I did not intend to mean anything contrary to that. My interest
is only to explore the networking aspects (if any), of using /net with
9P, as against the existing POSIX compliant networks we have, on
fronts like anonymity, firewalling and the like. It is important to
know that, if I am working to have /net on Linux.. because at the
moment, I have no reason to believe that there is any use at all in
doing so, apart from enabling the "compiled on/for Plan 9" a.out
binaries to find the /net (which they assume to be available
everytime... on Plan 9 systems) when loaded on a Linux kernel with
Glendix patches.

> Am I misunderstanding what you're saying?
>
>> Rahul Murmuria
>
> Tim Newsham | www.thenewsh.com/~newsham | thenewsh.blogspot.com
>
>



--
Rahul Murmuria