"Russell Berry" <russ,AT,berrex,DOT,com>|
"Damion K. Wilson" <dwilson,AT,ibl,DOT,bm>|
Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:15:24 -0300|
<email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>|
No problem. Now can I understand where you're coming from.
When I approached CIPE-Win32 originally, I had to decide whether I would
implement the protocol only, or actually make the software work just like
CIPE did already. As you can see, the implementation on Windows has no
similarity to that on Linux. This is because the Windows environment is
sufficiently dissimilar to cause a Linux style implementation tobe cumbersome
and, perhaps, even unworkable.
That said, if one were to approach the problem/s by trying to make a single
codebase for all platforms, how would you deal with the device drivers and
their interactions with the service/daemons ? Would you run separate
processes for each adapter instance (resource problems on Windows or with
Java) or would you use threading (debugging issues and problems with pthreads
on Linux) ? I'm pretty sure that the adapter drivers will have to be written
in "C" on both platforms, the only entities that are ripe for rewrite in
another language are cipsrvr.exe and ciped-cb.
I don't have an opinion on this yet, I'm just going over the obvious issues.
do understand that you envision platform independence as a way of reducing
the number of problems with the codebase. However, the solution may actually
cause more problems than the problem itself !
On Friday 27 June 2003 11:55 am, you wrote:
> Hey Damion,
> I apologize if I offended you in some way, I assure you that was not my
> intention. My personal experience with win/cipe has had limited success.
> I love linux-linux cipe tunnels, as they are they only VPN that will hold
> up on a two way satellite connection for a sustainted period of time. The
> problems I've experienced with Windows range from blue screens to
> non-specific network failures while using that cipe adapter/service. I cut
> my teeth on C back in the days of K&R when unix wasn't kewl, so I'm aware
> of the portability issues, or the lack thereof I should say.
> I feel that we need a platform independent way of implementing cipe, and I
> only use the term proxy in the literal sense. Maybe I should term it 'proxy
> routing'. I admit I haven't read every line of cipe code, time doesn't
> permit me such luxuries anymore, so I have to make the assumption that such
> an implementation would link into the network protocol stacks a different
> way than creating a cipe adapter and I don't even know if there is a way to
> create a virtual adapter with java, or other more portable languages.
> So if you will indulge me, I'll re-state my question this way; Is a
> portable language version feasible, and if so how might the bindings to an
> 'network adapter' take place?
> Thank you,
> Russell Berry
> Berrex Computer Solutions
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Damion Wilson" <dwilson,AT,ibl,DOT,bm>
> To: "Russell Berry" <russ,AT,berrex,DOT,com>
> Cc: <cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de>
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:13 PM
> Subject: Re: java
> > There's only the one implementation and I'm acutely aware of the problems
> as I
> > keep and have reviewed each of the pertinent emails. However, I'm not
> > of the problems you perceive and am not particularly clear as to how they
> > could be solved by Java or a proxy (?).
> > My question was not to find out what's on the mailing list, it was to
> > find
> > what YOU consider to be problematic, in an effort to make the software
> > better, or to simply help you out. This is the way of Free/Open Source
> > Software.
> > Since you're averse to questions, I promise not ask you any more of them.
> > Damion K. Wilson
> > On Thursday 26 June 2003 06:55 pm, you wrote:
> > > Well, I've been following this list for a number of years now, I've
> > > seen extensive messages about problems with windows implementations. I
> > > know you've seen the same posts I have, so how about not answering a
> > > question with a question and just address the message I posted?
> > >
> > > ---russ
> > >
> > > Russell Berry
> > > Berrex Computer Solutions
> > > http://www.berrex.com
> > > Russ,AT,berrex,DOT,com
> > > 1-877-558-9507
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Damion Wilson" <dwilson,AT,ibl,DOT,bm>
> > > To: "Russell Berry" <russ,AT,berrex,DOT,com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 4:25 PM
> > > Subject: Re: java
> > >
> > > > What kinds of obstacles ?
> > > >
> > > > DKW
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday 26 June 2003 11:54 am, Russell Berry wrote:
> > > > > I was wondering if anyone has contemplated a java/proxy version of
> > > > > cipe.
> > >
> > > I
> > >
> > > > > think it may overcome many obstacles faced by MS Windows users.
> > > > >
> > > > > ---russ
> > > > >
> > > > > Russell Berry
> > > > > Berrex Computer Solutions
> > > > > http://www.berrex.com
> > > > > Russ,AT,berrex,DOT,com
> > > > > 1-877-558-9507
> > --
> > Message sent by the cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de mailing list.
> > Unsubscribe: mail majordomo,AT,inka,DOT,de, "unsubscribe cipe-l" in body
> > Other commands available with "help" in body to the same address.
> > CIPE info and list archive: