> i think it's a *great* idea, but it doesn't give you the same things
> nat does and isn't useful in the same cases. but i'd love to be able
> to import my plan9 /net from my OS X box.
It seems a pretty universal opinion that were other OSs
capable of importing a Plan9 /net, their _functioning_ t
i think it's a *great* idea, but it doesn't give you the same things
nat does and isn't useful in the same cases. but i'd love to be able
to import my plan9 /net from my OS X box.
2009/4/15 Anthony Sorace :
> the idea is interesting, but it's a compliment, not a replacement.
> there's plenty of situations where installing something on all your
> hosts is either impractical or undesirable; centralizing the work in
> network infrastructure is often a big win. doing what you de
2009/4/15 Nathaniel W Filardo :
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 02:03:35PM +0200, Patrick Kristiansen wrote:
>> I'm thinking of writing a NAT implementation for plan 9.
>
> I would suggest instead that it might be easier to write an adaptor program
> for non-Plan 9 hosts which made their network stacks t
the idea is interesting, but it's a compliment, not a replacement.
there's plenty of situations where installing something on all your
hosts is either impractical or undesirable; centralizing the work in
network infrastructure is often a big win. doing what you describe
hits a different set of use
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 02:03:35PM +0200, Patrick Kristiansen wrote:
> I'm thinking of writing a NAT implementation for plan 9.
I would suggest instead that it might be easier to write an adaptor program
for non-Plan 9 hosts which made their network stacks talk to a /net. That
is, you'd want a pr
2009/4/15 Devon H. O'Dell
>
>
> I think #2 would be an easily testable and maybe more `correct' way to
> do this in Plan 9. I think doing an implementation directly in the IP
> path is easier, overall, but that's where my experience lies anyway.
>
Thanks, I'll try that.
>
>
> > Do you have any a
> Hello 9fans.
> I'm thinking of writing a NAT implementation for plan 9. I have searched the
> archives and I'm not quite sure how to get started.
>
> As I see it there could be three ways of approaching this:
>
> 1. User space implementation using ipmux
> 2. User space using pkt interfaces in i
2009/4/15 Patrick Kristiansen :
> Hello 9fans.
> I'm thinking of writing a NAT implementation for plan 9. I have searched the
> archives and I'm not quite sure how to get started.
Hi Patrick,
> As I see it there could be three ways of approaching this:
> 1. User space implementation using ipmux
>
Hello 9fans.
I'm thinking of writing a NAT implementation for plan 9. I have searched the
archives and I'm not quite sure how to get started.
As I see it there could be three ways of approaching this:
1. User space implementation using ipmux
2. User space using pkt interfaces in ipifc.
3. Kernel
Hello !
Look at 6in4(8) sources, it uses ipmux to get packets.
This will be the first step to NAT.
P.S.: I'm using hardware NAT (by Cisco)
2008/11/16 erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Obviously, a linux server is going to have a hard time importing /net
> > (in a useful way, at least unti
most people have plenty of power to spare on their cpu
servers and feeding a dsl modem at < 10mbit/sec is really
trivial these days. were you thinking of natting >1gbit?
Needless to say, very capable (Linux-based) DSL modems with highly
configurable built-in switch, router, NAT, and firewal ar
> Running NAT at user level would, assuming I'm not totally off base, be
> quite expensive and the hardware on which it runs would have to be
> pretty powerful.
most people have plenty of power to spare on their cpu
servers and feeding a dsl modem at < 10mbit/sec is really
trivial these days. wer
> perhaps you forgot to read the part where i said
> i don't think this would require anything from the
> kernel; the ip would not need modification.
OK, I read it and promptly forgot it because none of the "canonical"
implementations of NAT I am familiar with seem to be able to operate
without ke
>> i've got a lot of folk in the house who run whatever.
>> i'd really like to decommission the non-plan 9 machine.
>> the one thing i need from it is nat. (and i don't want
>> to be stuck fiddling more stuff on the dsl appliance.)
>> doing nat just isn't that hard. i just need to find the time.
> i've got a lot of folk in the house who run whatever.
> i'd really like to decommission the non-plan 9 machine.
> the one thing i need from it is nat. (and i don't want
> to be stuck fiddling more stuff on the dsl appliance.)
> doing nat just isn't that hard. i just need to find the time.
> thi
> Obviously, a linux server is going to have a hard time importing /net
> (in a useful way, at least until Glendix gets there).
i've got a lot of folk in the house who run whatever.
i'd really like to decommission the non-plan 9 machine.
the one thing i need from it is nat. (and i don't want
to
17 matches
Mail list logo
