[Dave Hudson <dave@humbug.demon.co.uk> writes:]
>How easy would it be to extend the network server to implement a
>different transport layer? I like the idea of the IL transport that
>Plan 9 uses (although I must admit I've not looked at the code for it)
>as it sounds much cleaner as far as implementations on small targets go
>- TCP is a real nuissance. I also seem to remember Andy thinking about
>implementing a raw Ethernet protocol for remote-message-passing (as with
>QNX 4) - any more thoughts on this?
Perhaps the easiest way would be to have a standard mount point (and it
would still use TCP/IP if nothing was mounted at that name). So any server
which could handle the needed messages could be used. I could then imagine
a shim which could turn these into (raw) Ethernet messages--but it would
have to handle things like MTU limitations (some sort of scatter and
reassembly, I assume). Or it could be a teeny server which turned it into
bytes out a UART. You get the idea.
I'll convert the current C library shim (hard coded to IP) if this sounds
useful to anybody. I'd prefer to do it in concert with somebody actually
exercising an alternative transport.
Andy
Received on Tue Jul 18 10:19:30 2000
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 22 2005 - 15:12:56 PDT