[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: updated proposal
Re: updated proposal
Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:12:00 -0600
I thought a directory structure might be a more intuitive interface. It doesn't matter too much to me, as long as it stays intuitive down the road. I guess since it's really only going to implement two layers of the OSI model, it doesn't matter. A list might be more accessible.
Thanks for the feedback.
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Carl Fredrik Hammar <email@example.com
Yes, this is roughly how a hurdish network stack has been envisioned
> 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.
in the past.
Shouldn't it be /eth0/ip/tcp/? I.e. with internet protocol is layered
> 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,
> 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.)
over ethernet. Though it might be that I have misunderstood your
example or the protocol stack in general (this is not my area of
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/?
Re: updated proposal, olafBuddenhagen, 2008/03/29