ironhaven
Joined 7 years ago
Joined 7 years ago
If anyone is interested in this topic please just read the code[0]. It has a lot of interesting tricks that you would not have just rolling your own.
[0]https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/char/r...
Enthusiasts solve this problem with a dedicated VR only Wi-Fi router connected to their PC but now it will be much easier with the included 6Ghz Wi-Fi dongle in the box
The conceit behind NAT is that 99% of traffic over the router will be client-server and the last 1% can get away with separately negotiating with the router to get inbound traffic.
For example my ISP Xfinity by default will put your router in CGNAT space (and ipv6) but if you request port forwarding from a mobile app the upstream router will assign you a ipv4 address and it all works. NAT is considered fine because adding roadblocks to server hosting is a acceptable tradeoff.
The reason they i think they can be so flexible is that they likey have a ipv6 backbone to route to all the customers and ipv4 is not used for routing but as a extra service layered on top with packing the 48 bits of ipv4 and port inside a ipv6 address via MAP-T
It makes sense to be conservative with a new architecture but new high performance RISC-V cores such as from SiFive[1] are going to meet RVA23. That standard has vector and bit manipulation extensions that could be used to improve performance with a python interpreter. I guess more testing needs to be done to see if raising the bar is useful.
Having your config file be a c header and needing a recompile is different than not having any user accessible configuration
Speaking of not just gluing stuff together with usb/ip could one make a virtual WebUSB host kernel module that could be used by the Linux kernel USB stack? They most likely would not want to do that because then all of the code would be GPL and would have to be shared with the public.