ron said:

> Oh, and, it is likely that when we issue that many or more reads, we
> want a flow controlled network. Just guessing :-)


You'd want one, sure. But (unless I'm missing something) it doesn't
seem that increasing the number of outstanding messages would
*require* it (your performance would just suck otherwise). If you
treat the number of outstanding requests as a tunable (per mount, per
network type) you'd be able to use the same protocol over minimal
links as on tcp.

dave said:

> Wasn't IL somewhat abandoned because to make it as good
> as TCP you basically had to implement TCP anyway?

My impression is that it was pulled from mainline mostly because it
was seen as being too much work to maintain for a small group. It's
also not really sensible to talk about "as good as" without defining
your context. Over fast, local networks, IL is faster than TCP. It's
not as generic, but that's not the same as "worse".

erik said:

> why is using nat to make many hosts look like one a bad thing?

I suspect the reaction is based on being forced to use it when you'd
rather not, like many residential ISPs require. It's particularly
upsetting when the CPE doesn't even have a globally routable address.

aside: i made the il connection. i think you've got either good luck
or a good config on your end. it didn't want to ask dns for some reason.