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
2009/4/15 Patrick Kristiansen patrick.kasse...@gmail.com:
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
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.
2009/4/15 Devon H. O'Dell devon.od...@gmail.com
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
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
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
2009/4/15 Anthony Sorace ano...@gmail.com:
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.
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_
