From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [9fans] Multi-stack mail problem. From: David Presotto To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 09:29:29 -0400 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 57a02f7c-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 From the comments, I see that some people are confused. My terrible hack is only to live with totally separate stacks. If you want to openly route between different interfaces, or just have different interfaces to the 'open' internet, there's no reason for separate stacks. Any stack can have as many interfaces as you'ld like. The record so far was on the path star switch which support 256 interfaces on a single stack. In addition to multiple stacks, there are also multiple mount points. More than one network type can be on a single mount point. For example, you can have and IP stack and a datakit stack unioned on the same mount point. 'cs' is artificially intelligent and tries to figure out which you mean by the name you give it. If the name is possible on multiple network types, it gives you back the union of possibilities for you to work through. We lived that way for a long time while datakit was reliable and IP wasn't. Eventually datakit just died to be replaced by the monstrosity called ATM to later be replaced by the super-monstrosity called MPLS... Nothing against wasting bandwidth (it makes money for our company) just against the amazingly complex connection setup in those two networks. They are to datakit, what PPP is to SLIP. Clearly, dial doing what it does is a mistake, though I doubt it is Dan's problem. I could have made cs smart enough that I don't nead one per network mount point but instead one per system that understands all the mount points. That way it could consult all the stacks/mount points and see what is possible. The reason for not doing that to date is that the cs doesn't know which mount points/stacks the user process has in its name space. If I import an outside stack from our outside machine, there's no way for my cs to know that or even have access to that stack. Having cs under the mount point makes that a non-problem but pushes the responsibility to the library. To wit, I don't have a good idea for the correct solution and continue the hack until someone comes up with one.