Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 19 Nov 1996 07:33:02 +0000 (GMT)
From:      Adam David <adam@veda.is>
To:        davidn@blaze.net.au
Cc:        hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: split speed sio port?
Message-ID:  <199611190733.HAA03168@veda.is>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961119153924.562A-100000@server.blaze.net.au> from "David L. Nugent" at "Nov 19, 96 03:47:13 pm"

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > As a last resort, I could crosswire 2 ports into a single
> > serial-port connector, but how is it done using only the one port?
> 
> Hmm. Good luck. :-)
> 
> Just of interest, why on earth would you want to do this?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> David
> 

Metered incoming bandwidth, "free" outgoing. Actually, I'm looking for a
synchronous solution, with 32 kb/s to 128 kb/s incoming and anything from
512kb/s and upwards outgoing. But I can make do with asynchronous in the
meantime. (synchronous can also be done with 2 ports).

Of course I'll need (in the general case) a driver that can run a virtual
port over a set of physical ports (serial port equivalent of ccd :) or (in
the specific case) a "push-pull" driver using half each of 2 physical ports.
I might find myself writing such a beast.

Alternatively, it may well be that such asymmetrical IP routing is acceptable
(and maybe even desirable) along such a closed section of network pipeline, or
might even turn out to be completely invisible to that level of things.
I can route via ppp0 from 10.0.0.1 to 10.0.1.1 (also let's say, on ppp0) and
route via ppp1 from 10.0.1.1 back to 10.0.0.1 (also let's say, on ppp1).
The routing doesn't even care what IP# picks up the connection on the other
end for delivery.

Will FreeBSD allow this scenario currently? :)
(I know, I know. Try it and see ;)

--
Adam David <adam@veda.is>



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611190733.HAA03168>