This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: RedBoot: gateway support
- To: Grant Edwards <grante at visi dot com>
- Subject: Re: [ECOS] RedBoot: gateway support
- From: Gary Thomas <gthomas at cambridge dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:12:45 -0700
- Cc: ecos-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <20010329131101.A9949@visi.com>
Grant Edwards wrote:
> Yesterday I added default gateway support to RedBoot --
> including using DHCP to get the netmask. It appears to be
> working, but I've got more testing I want to do.
>
> Here's the current situation:
>
> The routing logic (including determining Ethernet addresses)
> occurs at the UDP/TCP layer:
>
> * UDP uses the netmask/gatway configuration and then ARP
>
> * TCP uses whatever Ethernet address the SYN packet came from.
>
> The IP code then uses whatever Ethernet address is passed from
> the higher layers.
>
> This should work for a vast majority of networks. The only
> problem would be a network where outgoing TCP/IP packets are
> supposed to go to a _different_ gateway than the one they came
> in on. I've never seen a network like that, but it's doable.
>
> If one wants proper gateway support for TCP packets as well,
> there are two options:
>
> 1) Copy routing logic that's in UDP to TCP.
> [It's only about 5 lines of code, so it's no big deal.]
>
> 2) Put the routing logic in the IP layer and have the UDP and
> TCP layer pass just the IP address to the IP layer rather
> than passing IP+Ethernet to the IP layer. [This is a
> little more work, but feels like "the right thing to do".]
>
> Questions:
>
> 1) Is anybody interested in having gateway support put into
> RedBoot?
>
Yes. If you send it to me, we can see about making this "main stream".
Note: I'll probably need a copyright assignment from you if we don't
already have it.
>
> 2) If yes, is the current scheme (TCP uses source Ethernet,
> UDP does gateway and ARP) good enough?
>
> 3) If not, should gateway/Ethernet address logic be moved into
> the IP layer, or should the routing logic be duplicated in
> UDP and TCP code?
>
Ideally, the choices between these should be a configuration option
(eCos == Embedded Configurable Operating System)!! Once I see the
details, I'll let you know.
>
> --
> Grant Edwards
> grante@visi.com