Re: i want to help ! how ?
Igor Khavkine <i_khavki@alcor.concordia.ca> writes:
> Well, that's what I was asking about. Maybe a better idea would be to make
> pfinet support a general tunneling interface that gives control of the
> underlying protocol to a userspace daemon like ppp, slip, plip or whatever
> else one can run in userspace.
Note that pfinet is just as "userspace" as any other daemon. I suppose
you really mean dividing up the work between several daemons? I would
think that the first step in splitting pfinet into several processes
is to think about the interfaces between the processes, and the
resposibilities of each. (Of course, the result of that thinking might
also be that the whole division thing was a bad idea).
One division could be:
pfinet keeping track of ip packets, addresses, sockets (including
all tcp processing, etc) and interfaces, and possibly some routing
info.
ppp and eth sending and receiving ip packets using the appropriate
link-layer mechanisms
> Or another idea would be to setup each interface as a translator
> somewhere under /servers/socket/2/.
My first guess is no. Address family (the "2"-part of
/servers/socket/2) is somewhat independent of the link-level
transmission mechanism (ppp or ethernet). For instance, consider using
a single ethernet card for both ipv4 and ipv6; in this case I suspect
that you want a single process doing all of the ethernet stuff. But
that also depends on what ethernet device drivers look like, perhaps
it is no problem to have one ipv4 and one ipv6 process talking using
the same device? Getting received ethernet packets to the right
process seems to be more difficult than having several processes
sending packets.
Bottom line: I think it would be a very valuable contribution to look
carefully on the network stuff architecture, try to sort it out, and
write up your conclusions.
/Niels
Reply to: