Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Apr 16, 2023. It is now read-only.

There should be a way to distinguish between unicast and brodcast on link layer #21

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

sv75
Copy link

@sv75 sv75 commented Sep 25, 2011

Current netkit runs umlswitch with '-hub' argument that is making a difference between unicast and broadcast very thin on link layer.
This commit removes '-hub' argument, making umlswitch working as a switch and not a hub. I'm not sure this is very good idea because '-hub' was definitely used on purpose.

It is now possible to show difference between broadcast and unicast on link layer.
@kartoch
Copy link

kartoch commented Oct 2, 2011

Usually I see uml_switch as an unique wire between several machines connected in the same named domain. Thus I don't think this is the good idea, especially if I use an UML machine as a switch with bridge mode. The only real advantage would be performance with an very big number of packet, and I don't think that the main goal of netkit.

@sv75
Copy link
Author

sv75 commented Oct 3, 2011

Why do you think that the switch mode will cause problems if UML machine is used as a switch? uml_switch is very simple and even does not have STP. Besides, named domain now looks like a collusion domain, but modern ethernet protocols work only if switches are used. So eth0 in UML does not work as eth0 in real machine if uml_swicth is congigured as a hub .

@kartoch
Copy link

kartoch commented Oct 3, 2011

To simplify my comment: I prefer in some labs to see the named domain as a wire, not a switch.

If the switch behavior is really needed, one solution is to add a "flag" to change it in lab.conf. For instance, we can imagine a global variable '__configuration( to set specific behavior in lab.conf, for instance:

__configuration[real_switch] = 1

The '__configuration' would be a nice feature to add in next release of Netkit, and will keep compatibility with previous bahavior.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants