From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 19:33:39 -0400 Message-ID: <9ab217670906091633x17f635e3ka22a8e7a0c3a07f2@mail.gmail.com> From: "Devon H. O'Dell" To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] critique of sockets API Topicbox-Message-UUID: 085c4f28-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 >> i have no idea how this relates to the use of a fs in implementing the >> network stack. =A0why would using a filsystem (or not) make any differen= ce >> in the ability to multihome? >> >> by the way, plan 9 beats the pants off anything else i've used for >> multiple >> network / interface support. =A0it's support for mulitple ip stacks is q= uite >> neat. > > The question was meant to ask as to how easy it is to programmatically us= e > the filesystem interface in a multi home network. But I agree that suppor= t > for multiple network interfaces in Plan9 is way superior. I think you mean `networks with multiple gateways'? I don't see how Plan 9's model would affect this idea one way or the other, but perhaps I (or all of us) misunderstand this part of your questions. --me