From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: From: erik quanstrom Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:56:27 -0500 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [9fans] linux il/ip Topicbox-Message-UUID: a8ef282e-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 i want to mount my fs from linux. has anyone implemented -- or started an implementation -- of il for linux? i found some thoughts of it in the archives, but no actual information. i'm sure it would be easier to put tcp in the fs code, but that seemed too easy. ;-) - erik From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <126a2f7d0608280932t3483f9b3g8c4b210e51414231@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 21:32:04 +0500 From: "Sergey Zhilkin" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_134082_18427213.1156782724300" References: Topicbox-Message-UUID: a9143b14-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 ------=_Part_134082_18427213.1156782724300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi ! Look at http://plan9.aichi-u.ac.jp/netlib/il/ 2006/8/28, erik quanstrom : > > i want to mount my fs from linux. > > has anyone implemented -- or started an implementation -- of > il for linux? i found some thoughts of it in the archives, but > no actual information. > > i'm sure it would be easier to put tcp in the fs code, > but that seemed too easy. ;-) > > - erik > ------=_Part_134082_18427213.1156782724300 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi !
Look at http://plan9.aichi-u.ac.jp/netlib/il/

2006/8/28, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net >:
i want to mount my fs from linux.

has anyone implemented -- or started an implementation -- of
il for linux?  i found some thoughts of it in the archives, but
no actual information.

i'm sure it would be easier to put tcp in the fs code,
but that seemed too easy. ;-)

- erik

------=_Part_134082_18427213.1156782724300-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4c12a83a4ea7d4838ada5ebd5dcfc9a1@quanstro.net> From: erik quanstrom Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:43:26 -0500 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip In-Reply-To: <126a2f7d0608280932t3483f9b3g8c4b210e51414231@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: a91dcb70-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 that's not quite what i was looking for. in order to use v9fs to mount my fs directly (which running the fs kernel and therefore does not do tcp), i need the plan 9 kernel to directly recognize il packets. - erik From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <126a2f7d0608280956w2d5b49f5w813af77f09ebb58c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 21:56:32 +0500 From: "Sergey Zhilkin" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip In-Reply-To: <4c12a83a4ea7d4838ada5ebd5dcfc9a1@quanstro.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_134650_12107593.1156784192304" References: <126a2f7d0608280932t3483f9b3g8c4b210e51414231@mail.gmail.com> <4c12a83a4ea7d4838ada5ebd5dcfc9a1@quanstro.net> Topicbox-Message-UUID: a927d8cc-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 ------=_Part_134650_12107593.1156784192304 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Why not to use tcp ??? 2006/8/28, erik quanstrom : > > that's not quite what i was looking for. in order to use v9fs to mount > my fs directly (which running the fs kernel and therefore does not do > tcp), > i need the plan 9 kernel to directly recognize il packets. > > - erik > ------=_Part_134650_12107593.1156784192304 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Why not to use tcp ???

2006/8/28, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>:
that's not quite what i was looking for.  in order to use v9fs to mount
my fs directly (which running the fs kernel and therefore does not do tcp),
i need the plan 9 kernel to directly recognize il packets.

- erik

------=_Part_134650_12107593.1156784192304-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <0002c1748c3acfb2c0eaee0070045f85@quanstro.net> From: erik quanstrom Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:12:14 -0500 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip In-Reply-To: <126a2f7d0608280956w2d5b49f5w813af77f09ebb58c@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: a9443e9a-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 because the fileserver kernel does not offer tcp. - erik On Mon Aug 28 11:57:27 CDT 2006, szhilkin@gmail.com wrote: > Why not to use tcp ??? > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <45aae806902efed0a7cb4137cb05d4de@plan9.bell-labs.com> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:31:12 -0400 From: geoff@plan9.bell-labs.com In-Reply-To: <0002c1748c3acfb2c0eaee0070045f85@quanstro.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: a95026f6-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 The usual solution is to export the file server contents via a cpu server. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: From: erik quanstrom Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:51:42 -0500 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip In-Reply-To: <45aae806902efed0a7cb4137cb05d4de@plan9.bell-labs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: a95c62c2-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 unfortunately, i do not currently have a machine that can fill that role. - erik From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <56c8d7cd83974ae9765bba24f5e469e3@proxima.alt.za> To: quanstro@quanstro.net, 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 06:53:40 +0200 From: lucio@proxima.alt.za In-Reply-To: <4c12a83a4ea7d4838ada5ebd5dcfc9a1@quanstro.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Topicbox-Message-UUID: a993ecba-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > (which running the fs kernel and therefore does not do tcp) Surely you are mistaken? Geoff? ++L From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <387f454d2e6cd68e8ce57d0c187be61c@proxima.alt.za> To: geoff@plan9.bell-labs.com, 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 06:56:00 +0200 From: lucio@proxima.alt.za In-Reply-To: <45aae806902efed0a7cb4137cb05d4de@plan9.bell-labs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Topicbox-Message-UUID: a9a62772-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > The usual solution is to export the file server contents via a cpu > server. Well, I could have sworn FS had TCP built-in. Imagine being wrong all these years! I guess I'm lucky I never had to test it :-) ++L From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip From: Brantley Coile Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 10:37:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <387f454d2e6cd68e8ce57d0c187be61c@proxima.alt.za> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: a9c2238c-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 IL works great in a local network. I would guess that the change in 9P to better support a stream protocol like TCP was to get better performance to system over the Internet. One would tcp to a cpu server serving 9P2000 which was IL'ing the fs. My guess on the outside. Jim? Geoff? bc void tcprecv(Msgbuf *mb, Ifc*) { mbfree(mb); } >> The usual solution is to export the file server contents via a cpu >> server. > > Well, I could have sworn FS had TCP built-in. Imagine being wrong all > these years! I guess I'm lucky I never had to test it :-) > > ++L From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <21fffd77c3f483b17d11250b8fdcc979@9netics.com> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 10:05:04 -0700 From: Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: a9cd4a5a-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 yes. in 2002 rob said: * We are phasing out the IL protocol since it doesn't handle long-distance connections well (and long-distance networks don't handle it well, either). IL is still used by fs(4) (in time, that too will change) but TCP has become the stan- dard protocol for all other services. http://tinyurl.com/o2lry > IL works great in a local network. I would guess that the change in > 9P to better support a stream protocol like TCP was to get better > performance to system over the Internet. One would tcp to a cpu > server serving 9P2000 which was IL'ing the fs. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <5c56564016f8e5c037e36adc796f70a8@quanstro.net> From: erik quanstrom Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:49:18 -0500 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip In-Reply-To: <21fffd77c3f483b17d11250b8fdcc979@9netics.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: a9d81f66-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 i'm not sure il's completely moot. has anybody done any tcp vs il performance measurements on gigabit or 10 gigibit networks, including cpu usage? the fact that it doesn't route well over the internet shouldn't be too much of a bother most of the time. my only problem is that of all the protocols that linux choose to implement, il wasn't one of them. ;-) - erik From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3e1162e60608291314n19d1e419vbe20c7e24a51f62@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:14:24 -0700 From: "David Leimbach" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip In-Reply-To: <5c56564016f8e5c037e36adc796f70a8@quanstro.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <21fffd77c3f483b17d11250b8fdcc979@9netics.com> <5c56564016f8e5c037e36adc796f70a8@quanstro.net> Topicbox-Message-UUID: a9e52832-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 8/29/06, erik quanstrom wrote: > i'm not sure il's completely moot. has anybody done any tcp vs il performance > measurements on gigabit or 10 gigibit networks, including cpu usage? > > the fact that it doesn't route well over the internet shouldn't be too much of a > bother most of the time. my only problem is that of all the protocols that linux > choose to implement, il wasn't one of them. ;-) Tell me you don't use the ham radio support every day.... > > - erik > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <22d762de16fd56b1516287d998492c46@plan9.bell-labs.com> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:38:37 -0400 From: geoff@plan9.bell-labs.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: a9eb3a9c-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 I don't think I was around when the decision to drop IL was made. NAPT devices in particular didn't like it; among other things, its port numbers are in different places in packet headers than TCP's and UDP's. I don't think an IPv6 version of IL was ever created either. I'm not exactly sure what Brantley's question is. We've still got emelie and choline running Ken's file server and serving only 9P over IL, but I'm moving their data into fossils and ventis as quickly as possible. The other file servers (e.g., edith, martha/sources) are all fossil/venti or vacfs/venti servers serving 9P only over TCP. So some of the data seen externally is ultimately fetched via IL, but that's a small fraction and getting smaller. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:43:40 -0400 From: jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip In-Reply-To: <5c56564016f8e5c037e36adc796f70a8@quanstro.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: a9f0cfd4-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 il is dead, deal with it. if you like i'll remove it from the distributed code. ken tried to put tcp into the old fileserver and gave up in disgust. On Tue Aug 29 15:53:57 EDT 2006, quanstro@quanstro.net wrote: > i'm not sure il's completely moot. has anybody done any tcp vs il performance > measurements on gigabit or 10 gigibit networks, including cpu usage? > > the fact that it doesn't route well over the internet shouldn't be too much of a > bother most of the time. my only problem is that of all the protocols that linux > choose to implement, il wasn't one of them. ;-) > > - erik From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <9b42cc3fdcf168a5250146e18919234f@quanstro.net> From: erik quanstrom Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:07:28 -0500 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip In-Reply-To: <3e1162e60608291314n19d1e419vbe20c7e24a51f62@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: aa02f466-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 okay, i'm a dunce. please stop killing me for asking. - erik From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip From: Brantley Coile Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:27:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <22d762de16fd56b1516287d998492c46@plan9.bell-labs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: aa0d8250-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > I'm not exactly sure what Brantley's question is. Didn't have one. Was just trying to shine a dim light on things. (Not that I WANT the light to be dim.) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4c482166da253152443b275c7331caaf@coraid.com> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip From: Brantley Coile Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:29:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: aa18389e-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > il is dead, deal with it. if you like i'll remove it > from the distributed code. ken tried to put tcp into the > old fileserver and gave up in disgust. Please don't. We still depend on it. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:15:27 -0700 From: Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> In-Reply-To: <4c482166da253152443b275c7331caaf@coraid.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: aa207b26-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 >> il is dead, deal with it. if you like i'll remove it >> from the distributed code. ken tried to put tcp into the >> old fileserver and gave up in disgust. > > Please don't. We still depend on it. i have the same request. thanks. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <44F6C4DD.8040704@anvil.com> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:15:41 +0100 From: Dave Lukes User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: ac2b21dc-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > il is dead, Empirically this is currently untrue. Also, a while ago, the perceptive Mr. Forsyth pointed out that keeping >1 protocol around makes people more honest (i.e. less inclined to make things more-or-less subtly protocol-dependent). I know that's not an argument in favour of il, but there ain't anything else is there? Also, on a personal note, one of the main strengths of plan9 from my pot of view is didacticism: having a clean(er) protocol around to look at may in itself be useful. > deal with it. OK: I'll deal with it. Here goes ... BoooHoooo!!! Bwaaaaahhhh!!! You BASTARD!!!!!!! YOU KILLED IL!!!! I will TRAVEL back in TIME and MUTATE your ANCESTORS!!!!!!!!! There: I've dealt with it. Just in case it causes offence: the above was a JOKE. > if you like i'll remove it from the distributed code. Please don't do that: you'll only encourage the kids to create mutant underground versions. > ken tried to put tcp into the old fileserver and gave up in disgust. and you wonder why people have a lingering fondness for il? I know nothing about il other than it's leaner than TCP, both in implementation and on the wire, but even that may be useful as an example of how to do it. When in future I decide to hurl bits around a LAN at high speed, I don't want TCP dreck vomited over my wires; nor do I want to do the damned TCP ritual where I have to have the damned manuals in front of me to look at the packets because TCP is like pain: the human mind can't recall it accurately if it is to stay sane. I'm sure that il ain't The Definitive Answer but neither is TCP (definitely!) DaveL :-) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: From: erik quanstrom Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 11:14:28 -0500 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip In-Reply-To: <44F6C4DD.8040704@anvil.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: adb97ff8-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > I know that's not an argument in favour of il, > but there ain't anything else is there? without doing a survey, linux has added three new ip protocols since the beginning of the year. dccp, sctp and tipc. the only one that is smaller than tcp is dccp and it doesn't provide for retransmission. (it's intended for streaming content, i believe.) linux 2.6.17 proto ip4 linecount features udp 1594 tcp 14628 dccp 8224 congestion controlled, unreliable sctp 29139 reliable, mtu-aware, in-order + packet bundling, multipath tipc 18175 "transparent" ipc. oh, for comparison's sake cpu kernel: udp 647 il 1408 tcp 3177 - erik From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3e1162e60609010934s4f9ab84ib1f36454dddc7581@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:34:34 -0700 From: "David Leimbach" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <44F6C4DD.8040704@anvil.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: adc6b452-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 9/1/06, erik quanstrom wrote: > > I know that's not an argument in favour of il, > > but there ain't anything else is there? > > without doing a survey, linux has added three new ip protocols since the beginning of the > year. dccp, sctp and tipc. the only one that is smaller than tcp is dccp and it doesn't > provide for retransmission. (it's intended for streaming content, i believe.) > > linux 2.6.17 > proto ip4 linecount features > udp 1594 > tcp 14628 > > dccp 8224 congestion controlled, unreliable > sctp 29139 reliable, mtu-aware, in-order + packet bundling, multipath > tipc 18175 "transparent" ipc. > > oh, for comparison's sake > > cpu kernel: > udp 647 > il 1408 > tcp 3177 > > - erik > So what's the performance of il vs tcp like on Plan 9? Is it because TCP could be done better? Also what are the chances of adding TCP to the FS kernel? I just don't see that il support in linux is as likely to be supportable as adding TCP to our more controlled code base. Dave From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <27600125f6a8eb98666fef278575bb39@quanstro.net> From: erik quanstrom Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 11:41:55 -0500 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip In-Reply-To: <3e1162e60609010934s4f9ab84ib1f36454dddc7581@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: adcc2cc0-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 good points. but i wasn't trying to address that question. i was trying to point out that there are a few alternative protocols, but they are (at least according to the linux implementation) huge and with the possible exception of sctp, not very useful for plan 9. - erik From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3e1162e60609011016o1cff353eu81d06cc9651e1db6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 10:16:46 -0700 From: "David Leimbach" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: Re: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip In-Reply-To: <27600125f6a8eb98666fef278575bb39@quanstro.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3e1162e60609010934s4f9ab84ib1f36454dddc7581@mail.gmail.com> <27600125f6a8eb98666fef278575bb39@quanstro.net> Topicbox-Message-UUID: add0a62e-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 9/1/06, erik quanstrom wrote: > good points. but i wasn't trying to address that question. > > i was trying to point out that there are a few alternative > protocols, but they are (at least according to the linux > implementation) huge and with the possible exception of sctp, > not very useful for plan 9. > > - erik > Well in that case I agree :-). SCTP could be interesting to add to Plan 9. Would it require DARPA funding or an NSF grant? :-) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:17:16 -0700 From: "Christopher Nielsen" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: Re: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip In-Reply-To: <3e1162e60609011016o1cff353eu81d06cc9651e1db6@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3e1162e60609010934s4f9ab84ib1f36454dddc7581@mail.gmail.com> <27600125f6a8eb98666fef278575bb39@quanstro.net> <3e1162e60609011016o1cff353eu81d06cc9651e1db6@mail.gmail.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: c1532d0c-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 9/1/06, David Leimbach wrote: > SCTP could be interesting to add to Plan 9. Would it require DARPA > funding or an NSF grant? :-) haven't had internet access in a while, so i am just getting around to responding to this. i started an SCTP implementation a while back; it looked like an interesting protocol. i didn't get too far before i gave up. the complexity of the protocol gave me the willies. i am considering going back to what i started, but currently, i think my limited coding time will be better spent elsewhere. we'll see. -- Christopher Nielsen "They who can give up essential liberty for temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: From: erik quanstrom Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:56:52 -0500 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: c15947aa-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 from what i can tell, SCTP combines the limitations of il with the complexity of tcp. i think porting il to linux would be more useful. - erik On Mon Sep 25 18:18:00 CDT 2006, cnielsen@pobox.com wrote: > On 9/1/06, David Leimbach wrote: > > SCTP could be interesting to add to Plan 9. Would it require DARPA > > funding or an NSF grant? :-) > > haven't had internet access in a while, so i am just getting around to > responding to this. > > i started an SCTP implementation a while back; it looked like an > interesting protocol. i didn't get too far before i gave up. the > complexity of the protocol gave me the willies. > > i am considering going back to what i started, but currently, i think > my limited coding time will be better spent elsewhere. we'll see. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:12:36 +0200 From: Martin Neubauer To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip Message-ID: <20060926081235.GA18116@shodan.homeunix.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Topicbox-Message-UUID: c18eea68-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 * erik quanstrom (quanstro@quanstro.net) wrote: > from what i can tell, SCTP combines the limitations of il with the complexity of tcp. > i think porting il to linux would be more useful. > > - erik Is there then a chance to get il extended ti ipv6? Martin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <126a2f7d0609260321n45d44450xb1b9ee0208ddc749@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:21:02 +0500 From: "Sergey Zhilkin" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: Re: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_3864_19171302.1159266062568" References: Topicbox-Message-UUID: c1b52b2e-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 ------=_Part_3864_19171302.1159266062568 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Maybe /sys/src/cmd/unix/9pfreebsd will be good startpoint ? 2006/9/26, erik quanstrom : > > from what i can tell, SCTP combines the limitations of il with the > complexity of tcp. > i think porting il to linux would be more useful. > > - erik > > On Mon Sep 25 18:18:00 CDT 2006, cnielsen@pobox.com wrote: > > On 9/1/06, David Leimbach wrote: > > > SCTP could be interesting to add to Plan 9. Would it require DARPA > > > funding or an NSF grant? :-) > > > > haven't had internet access in a while, so i am just getting around to > > responding to this. > > > > i started an SCTP implementation a while back; it looked like an > > interesting protocol. i didn't get too far before i gave up. the > > complexity of the protocol gave me the willies. > > > > i am considering going back to what i started, but currently, i think > > my limited coding time will be better spent elsewhere. we'll see. > ------=_Part_3864_19171302.1159266062568 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Maybe /sys/src/cmd/unix/9pfreebsd will be good startpoint ?

2006/9/26, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>:
from what i can tell, SCTP combines the limitations of il with the complexity of tcp.
i think porting il to linux would be more useful.

- erik

On Mon Sep 25 18:18:00 CDT 2006, cnielsen@pobox.com wrote:
> On 9/1/06, David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com> wrote:
> > SCTP could be interesting to add to Plan 9.  Would it require DARPA
> > funding or an NSF grant? :-)
>
> haven't had internet access in a while, so i am just getting around to
> responding to this.
>
> i started an SCTP implementation a while back; it looked like an
> interesting protocol. i didn't get too far before i gave up. the
> complexity of the protocol gave me the willies.
>
> i am considering going back to what i started, but currently, i think
> my limited coding time will be better spent elsewhere. we'll see.

------=_Part_3864_19171302.1159266062568-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3b0429061aabc0eb9907215e207b27a4@quanstro.net> From: erik quanstrom Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 06:44:47 -0500 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip In-Reply-To: <20060926081235.GA18116@shodan.homeunix.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: c1c3f97e-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 i don't think it would be very hard -- or very useful. since many routers dislike any data that's not udp/tcp if you'd like to extend il, i think that il/ethernet would be a better way to go. - erik On Tue Sep 26 03:20:53 CDT 2006, m.ne@gmx.net wrote: > * erik quanstrom (quanstro@quanstro.net) wrote: > > from what i can tell, SCTP combines the limitations of il with the complexity of tcp. > > i think porting il to linux would be more useful. > > > > - erik > > Is there then a chance to get il extended ti ipv6? > > Martin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <1055b16f0609260653i60fb764al9743bed22a0dfec3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:53:53 -0400 From: "Artem Letko" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip In-Reply-To: <3b0429061aabc0eb9907215e207b27a4@quanstro.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060926081235.GA18116@shodan.homeunix.net> <3b0429061aabc0eb9907215e207b27a4@quanstro.net> Topicbox-Message-UUID: c1dfb9ca-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 9/26/06, erik quanstrom wrote: > i don't think it would be very hard -- or very useful. > since many routers dislike any data that's not udp/tcp > that's not true - ip routers don't care about layers 4 and up most of the time > if you'd like to extend il, i think that il/ethernet > would be a better way to go. > > - erik -art From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip From: Charles Forsyth Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:14:43 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1055b16f0609260653i60fb764al9743bed22a0dfec3@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: c2184f88-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > since many routers dislike any data that's not udp/tcp >> that's not true - ip routers don't care about layers 4 and up most of the time it's mainly nat boxes and other protocol transformers that are confused. to assist that and similar transformations, the ipv6 designers carefully put port numbers, lengths and checksums in standard places in all v6 variants of the existing protocols (since the headers were changing anyway). how's that??? they didn't!!??!?! From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:18:35 -0400 From: "Russ Cox" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1055b16f0609260653i60fb764al9743bed22a0dfec3@mail.gmail.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: c21e51f8-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 IL is long dead. I used IL over long-distance connections. It was awful. TCP is a necessity once you move beyond the local ethernet. There are no good reasons to try to port IL to other systems or to try to update it for IPv6. The only even plausible reason is to connect to old Plan 9 file servers, but your effort would be better spent writing some glue so that the old file server code could run in user space on standard kernels. If, as was mentioned at the start of the thread, you simply want to mount your old file server from Linux, by far the easiest solution is to find a Plan 9 box to proxy between TCP and IL: cat >/bin/service/tcp1234 < To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip From: Brantley Coile Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:42:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: c228c1ec-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > IL is long dead. I don't want to seem cantankerous, but who decided it was dead? If you folks think of it as cast off doesn't mean that someone else has an application where IL would be a good solution. Brantley From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:05:43 -0400 From: jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip In-Reply-To: <03d807f37753a2ca670c77a2272641ae@coraid.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: c2301d16-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue Sep 26 13:45:58 EDT 2006, brantley@coraid.com wrote: > > IL is long dead. > > I don't want to seem cantankerous, but who decided > it was dead? If you folks think of it as cast off > doesn't mean that someone else has an application > where IL would be a good solution. > > Brantley > That would be me. On Tue Aug 29 16:46:15 EDT 2006, jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote: > il is dead, deal with it. > ... I'll repeat what I said in another thread: On Thu Sep 21 21:26:38 EDT 2006, jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote: > If you have energy to burn, use it to do something > interesting. Leave obsessing with the past to the monkeys. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:31:46 -0400 From: geoff@plan9.bell-labs.com In-Reply-To: <03d807f37753a2ca670c77a2272641ae@coraid.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: c237997e-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Once we get the last of the data off emelie, we'll be able to compile kernels without IL and stop using IL. So for our purposes, IL will be dead. People with ken file servers (including me) will undoubtedly keep using IL for a while, which seems appropriate. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:08:26 -0700 From: "Christopher Nielsen" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip In-Reply-To: <1055b16f0609260653i60fb764al9743bed22a0dfec3@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060926081235.GA18116@shodan.homeunix.net> <3b0429061aabc0eb9907215e207b27a4@quanstro.net> <1055b16f0609260653i60fb764al9743bed22a0dfec3@mail.gmail.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: c2464f3c-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 the problem is firewalls and nat do care, and they are everywhere. back when i was purchasing large volumes of cisco equipment each year for an employer, i tried to get cisco to add IL support to IOS. no dice. apparently, we weren't purchasing enough. i agree with russ and jmk. IL is long dead. there are plenty of other projects that would be a better use of your time. On 9/26/06, Artem Letko wrote: > On 9/26/06, erik quanstrom wrote: > > i don't think it would be very hard -- or very useful. > > since many routers dislike any data that's not udp/tcp > > > > that's not true - ip routers don't care about layers 4 and up most of the time > > > if you'd like to extend il, i think that il/ethernet > > would be a better way to go. > > > > - erik > > -art > > -- Christopher Nielsen "They who can give up essential liberty for temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: From: erik quanstrom Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:28:15 -0500 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: c25126f0-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 in defence of il, and more generally the idea that tcp is not the answer to every question, i have three points and one question: 1. i think this is one-size-fits-all thinking. tcp may be all things to all people, but i can't imagine that it's always the best solution. two new protocols were added to linux this year. if they thought "cisco doesn't support it, lets give up" they wouldn't have written 27kloc for sctp. (btw, there are a couple of commercial routers based on linux these days so sctp is probablly fairly routable.) 2. who said every project has to be the best use of one's time? and if that were really the measure, wouldn't we all be using windows? 3. and in this case, all protocols don't need to be routed. (unless somebody made a new rule.) perhaps that's an advantage if you want to keep your venti store to yourself. okay. so it's not routable over the internet, which may or may not be moot. are there any other reasons that il is no good? on my 1GHz pIV linux box, the tcp throughput test to one of my plan 9 machines (just to confirm some previously observed wierd performance numbers), linux was gasping for breath at 315Mbit with tcp. i'd really love to know how linux would fair with other protocols. - erik On Tue Sep 26 20:09:00 CDT 2006, cnielsen@pobox.com wrote: > the problem is firewalls and nat do care, and they are everywhere. > > back when i was purchasing large volumes of cisco equipment each year > for an employer, i tried to get cisco to add IL support to IOS. no > dice. apparently, we weren't purchasing enough. > > i agree with russ and jmk. IL is long dead. there are plenty of other > projects that would be a better use of your time. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <765f3c377de875c5a688bcc245f81a3e@quanstro.net> From: erik quanstrom Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:33:00 -0500 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] linux il/ip In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: c25b9fc2-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 in my limited experience, the file server is much easier to set up, makes fewer demands on hardware and exhibits lower lantency than venti+fossil running on a cpu kernel. but if you're going to run a cpu kernel, i see no point in the file server code. - erik On Tue Sep 26 12:19:23 CDT 2006, rsc@swtch.com wrote: > The only even plausible reason is to connect to old > Plan 9 file servers, but your effort would be better spent > writing some glue so that the old file server code could > run in user space on standard kernels.