Hello Jan, In our case, it is possible to know when the non-rt traffic will occur. So, maybe the proxy solutions seams to be appropriate. But the encapsulation solutions seams nice too.
Another question: does, in both cases, the communication work with the currect telnet and ftp binaries? Should I have to recompile something? My concern is about the socket api which might have been used by these applications and the absence of the eth0 interface. Thank you for your help. Best regards, Flavio 2010/9/11 Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@web.de>: > Am 11.09.2010 21:17, Flavio de Castro Alves Filho wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I am new to rtnet and I am starting to work with it in my projects. >> >> And I have a, maybe, dumb question. Can I use conventional ftp and >> telnet services using the rteth0 interface working, instead of the >> eth0 interface? >> >> How do I have to proceed if in my embedded system should have >> real-time communication services and also not real-time services, just >> like telnet and ftp? > > Either you have separate physical networks for both traffic types, your > you stack them (non-RT encapsulated inside RT, see the figure at [1] for > that scenario) - or you merge them via the rtnetproxy or RTmac+nomac. In > the latter case, the RT qualities can suffer significantly unless you > can establish strict control over the "when" and the "how much" of the > non-RT packets on the medium. > > Jan > > [1] http://www.rtnet.org/doc.html > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances and start using them to simplify application deployment and accelerate your shift to cloud computing http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ RTnet-users mailing list RTnet-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rtnet-users
