What I asked is how M5 sets the mac addresses and what are the unique values(ARP table). I didn't find it in the M5 source codes.Xin ---- Original message ----Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 23:06:20 -0500 From: Ali Saidi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [m5-users] issues on switch model for cluster To: M5 users mailing list <m5-users@m5sim.org> M5 sets the mac addresses automatically to be unique values. The machines get each others MAC addresses through ARP discovery as they would in any real system. Like I said, if you implement the IEEE 802.1D bridging spec, it will all just work. Ali On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:00 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:The point is who sets those MAC address. The M5 simulator or users? I know the IP addresses are set by users in .rcS files. In the original M5, does each packet contain the destination mac address? Could you tell me where a packet is created in M5 source files? Thanks a lot. Xin ---- Original message ----Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:36:10 -0500 From: Ali Saidi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [m5-users] issues on switch model for cluster To: M5 users mailing list <m5-users@m5sim.org> The correct way is the MAC address, and it's always the mac address. The IEEE 802.1D specification has a section on ethernet switches that describes the process. Ali On Dec 6, 2007, at 7:19 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Actually, the EtherLink model can be completely replaced by the EtherSwitch model. The topology is looked as follows: ------------------------- System1--EtherInt1-|-Interface1--Interface2-|-EtherInt2--System2 | \ / | | \ / | | Interface3 | | | | ----------|---------------- EtherInt3 | System3 The above box is the switch model. The peer of EtherInt(i) is set to be Interface(i) and Interfaces in the box are interconnected with Links instead of EtherLinks. In your switch model, even though there are N EtherInts in the box and they are connected via Etherlinks from/to outside, some kind of route procedure is still needed. When the packet arrive at the EtherInt in the switch model, how can you determine which port is appropriate? I think the only way is to find the destination information from the packet,no matter mac address or ip address. So the question is how to get the destination information from packet. Xin ---- Original message ----Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:39:27 -0500 From: Ali Saidi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [m5-users] issues on switch model for cluster To: M5 users mailing list <m5-users@m5sim.org> On Dec 6, 2007, at 11:06 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Hello, I have created an EtherSwitch model to replace the EtherLink. However, I got two problems: 1) In original EtherLink model, each Interface has only one txlink, so when Interface::recvPacket(packet) is called by its peer, txlink->transmit(packet) is returned. But in the EtherSwitch model, each Interface has N-1 txlinks(N is # of systems), so function recvPacket(packet) must determine which txlink is needed to transmit the packet.The idea is that each two endpoints should have an EtherInt. So each system will have an EtherInt and then the switch should have a separate EtherInt for each "port" that exists on the switch. The probably should be connected with an EtherLink.I tried to find the destination information in the packet. I looked through base/inet.hh and found the function dst() can return the destination address, so I wrote the following codes: IpPtr p = IpPtr(packet); uint32_t ip_address = p->dst(); But the simulator exited with error when it ran the above codes. Can anyone know how to get the destination information from the packet?You should read the IEEE 802.1D ethernet standard. Not all packets transfered across ethernet are IP packets. You need to route based on MAC addresses, not on IP addresses. The switch model needs to keep a list of MAC addresses behind each port and then when it receives a packet it needs to find the appropriate port and send the packet to it. To be complete the model also needs to detect when no port exists and respond appropriately.2) similar to the above problem. In original EtherLink model, when Interface::isBusy() is called, it just returns txlink->busy() since it has only one txlink. But in the EtherSwitch model, isBusy doesn't know which txlink is needed to transmit the packet and the worse is no packet can be used to determine the destination. One feasible solution is make sure all txlinks are free before a packet is transmitted although only one txlink is used. My question is how to modify the original code in order to replace isBusy() by isBusy(packet).I think this will be more clear when you read the above specification, but the architecture should look something like this: http://zeep.eecs.umich.edu/~saidi/etherswitch.pdf Ali _______________________________________________ m5-users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users_______________________________________________ m5-users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users_______________________________________________ m5-users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users_______________________________________________ m5-users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users_______________________________________________ m5-users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users_______________________________________________ m5-users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
_______________________________________________ m5-users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
