Hisham Kotry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> With two in-dependent ip-stacks you'll probably need
> to do more work on the socket interface, as each would
> act on every call to any function of the socket API.
> Besides, a stack started after another wouldn't know
> about the currently exsisting con
Michal 'hramrach' Suchanek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think you completely misunderstood my post as your comments seem to be
> shifted by one layer. Or I misunderstood the pictures in prevois post.
Sorry for the confusion. Our termonology is far from perfect.
> As I understansd the picture
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 01:12:08PM +0100, Niels M?ller wrote:
> Michal 'hramrach' Suchanek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:52:25PM +0100, Niels M?ller wrote:
> > > Olivier P?ningault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > You didn't understand correctly. Layer 2 tr
--- Niels Möller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michal 'hramrach' Suchanek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> writes:
>
> The interface for reading raw ethernet frames should
> primarily filter
> on ethernet type code and ethernet addresses. If
> there are several
> processes (say, two completely independent
>
Michal 'hramrach' Suchanek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At the level where ip address is registered ip port can be registered as well.
> The ip header has to be analyzed to determine ip address and that makes it
> easy to check the port at the same time.
Perhaps I should read the ip specs again,
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 01:12:08PM +0100, Niels M?ller wrote:
> Michal 'hramrach' Suchanek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:52:25PM +0100, Niels M?ller wrote:
> > > Olivier P?ningault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This will be needed for routing. But for packets that
Michal 'hramrach' Suchanek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:52:25PM +0100, Niels M?ller wrote:
> > Olivier P?ningault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > You didn't understand correctly. Layer 2 translator performs ethernet +
> > > arp, not ip !
> If you do not do IP int
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:52:25PM +0100, Niels M?ller wrote:
> Olivier P?ningault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You didn't understand correctly. Layer 2 translator performs ethernet +
> > arp, not ip !
If you do not do IP int L2, how can you tell which L3 gets the packet?
>
> I think it's u
Hi again. Now I've read your description twice, and there are still a
few things that I find are unclear, and there are also a few things
that I think I understand, and which I believe are wrong.
Olivier Péningault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You didn't understand correctly. Layer 2 translator
le lun 28-10-2002 à 21:38, Niels Möller a écrit :
> > These translators will implement protocols such as : ip4+icmp4,
> > ip6+icmp6, and maybe other things will be aviable.
>
> I'm a little confused here. When you say "implement ip4", what does
> that mean? media-specific stuff (arp, ip-over-ether
My idea of networking:
I)
The bottom part is a device that accepts frames. This can be an ethernet
device or *lip device sending frames over serial/parallel line. Note that
atomic operation is sending/receving a packet, not bit, nor byte, probably
not even an ATM cell. (anyway ATM is probably dyin
Olivier Péningault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The network stack will be divided in several translators :
> - layer 2 translators. One of each will run per real physical device. It
> will give an interface for the layer 3 protocols, it will hide _all_ the
> data link stuff to upper layers. It wi
Hi all,
here is the updated version of my proposal for re-implementing network
in hurd. There are changes, since hurd-net doesn't exist any more. It is
replaced by having more stuff in some layers. People could think that
this breaks a little bit the usual layer design, but I will try to
explain a
Olivier Péningault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't know where you saw this use of IPv6 address that automagically
> include IPv4 addresses.
I'm talking about the "IPv4-mapped IPv6 address", as defined in section 2.5.4 in
RFC 2373 (you've found it already).
The hack to let an ipv6 socket ac
Olivier Péningault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> le sam 26-10-2002 à 20:13, Niels Möller a écrit :
> > like, it could be the current pfinet interface (where is that defined?
> in /hurd/socket.defs
Thanks. There's one thing I don't understand: What's an "address"?
Like in
/* Create an address f
le sam 26-10-2002 à 20:13, Niels Möller a écrit :
I have one remark, and some questions about your proposal.
> Layer 3 (IPv4 and IPv6), part 1
> ~~~
> Tells the interface that we're interested in packets with the given
> ip-address. Can be a unicast or multicast a
le sam 26-10-2002 à 20:13, Niels Möller a écrit :
> Layer 4 interface
>
> like, it could be the current pfinet interface (where is that defined?
in /hurd/socket.defs
This is interesting, when I will have finished the update of the
implementation I propose, I will send it (tomorrow, I hope).
olivi
I've tried to ponder on what the interfaces to the layer2 and layer3
code should look like. I'm thinking primarily of ipv4 and ipv6 over
ethernet, but I hope it's not too difficult to generalize to other
media.
Summary
~~~
I propose splitting the code into the following parts: layer 2 (device
18 matches
Mail list logo
