Hi,
> Olaf made some comments on my proposal and wanted to know a bit more about
> my actual implementation in the Hurd itself. I've done added a bit more
> to the proposal to explain what I feel is a good implementation.
> Basically, I was thinking the network stack could be divided into
> different translators per protocol and give the client access to different
> layers based on his needs.
Yes, this is roughly how a hurdish network stack has been envisioned
in the past.
> A network interface that registers an IP address would be listed with the
> others interfaces with each having a respective hierarchy of transport
> protocols underneath.
>
> For example,
>
> /ip/eth0/tcp/
> /ip/eth0/udp/
> /ip/eth1/tcp/
> /ip/eth1/udp/
> /ip/lo/tcp/
> /ip/lo/udp/
> /ip/tcp/
> /ip/udp/
>
> In this example, the client could choose from the first six options to get
> the interface of its choice. The last two could would let the network
> stack decide which network interface provided the connection. In this way
> the client could request a link for a TCP connection, for example, for
> eth0 using /ip/eth0/tcp/ or might not care and use /ip/tcp/ and let the
> server decide using any heuristic it wants (round-robin, etc.)
Shouldn't it be /eth0/ip/tcp/? I.e. with internet protocol is layered
over ethernet. Though it might be that I have misunderstood your
example or the protocol stack in general (this is not my area of
expertise).
In any case, I'm not sure why you have chosen directories. Why not
just: eth0, eth1, ip0, ip1, tcp0, tcp1, tcp0+1 etc. where tcp0+1
works like your /ip/tcp/?
Regards,
Fredrik