> 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".
history -fD /n/sources/plan9/sys/src/9/ip/il.c reveals just 4 interesting diffs since 2002. > > 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. that's like saying ferraris are bad because they can be driven into trees. sometimes you really want many hosts to look like one. for example, you may want a farm of http servers may hide behind a single ip address. this is a good thing for scalability. > 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. cs? il was removed from the protocols cs knows about. try cs from /n/sourcesdump/2006/0101/plan9/386/bin/cs. if that fixes it, i'll fix 9atom. - erik
