Apple Releases Preview of IP over FireWire

IP over FireWire by tps12 · 2002-12-04 04:27 · Score: 5, Funny

Jeez, the MPAA was already upset about IP over Ethernet. This'll drive them up the wall.

--

Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)

cluster me crazy by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-04 04:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

Does firewire offer any advantages over gigabit ethernet for building compute clusters?

Re:cluster me crazy by captainbonehead · 2002-12-04 04:42 · Score: 1

Not quite as fast, but cheaper for small networks. Plus, legacy iMacs/iBooks don't have any way to add GigE. Plus, could be a nice step toward cheap SAN and sharable scanners, etc.
Re:cluster me crazy by kuwan · 2002-12-04 05:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

Well, a Firewire network would be a lot cheaper. For a gigabit ethernet network you'd have to get a gigabit switch which are pretty expensive (at least $800-$900). For a Firewire netword you wouldn't even need a hub as computers can be daisy-chained together (assuming they have at least two Firewire ports). But if you do need a Firewire hub, they're pretty cheap compared to a gigabit hub/switch.

Also, many Macs can't be upgraded to gigabit ethernet. iMacs, iBooks, older PowerBooks, and older PowerMac don't have gigabit ethernet, but many of them do have Firewire. So depending on what you have, building a Firewire network is much more attractive than trying to build a gigabit ethernet network.

--
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
Re:cluster me crazy by mkoz · 2002-12-04 06:15 · Score: 2

does anyone know about network latency with Firewire IP? I have been told that 1000 & 100 MB ethernet have similar latency and that it much to high (slow) for some clustered tasks... leading people to use other networking hardware for clusters. Could firewire be a good low latency alternative?
Re:cluster me crazy by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-04 07:39 · Score: 1, Informative

Asante sells decent Mac-compatible gigabit NICs for older Macs or for a second NIC in a newer Mac.

The advantage Firewire has is not in networking computers, but in networking peripherals. You can plug a Firewire printer(try finding one, though), a Firewire camera, a Firewire RAID, a Firewire-administrable server or appliance, and a Firewire Zip drive, then you can take that whole set of peripherals and plug the whole mess into a Firewire hub with a workgroup or two on it. All computers in those workgroups will be able to treat all of those peripherals as if they were plugged in locally.

You could print, capture pics, scan photos, save files, and login to and reconfigure a server through a serial connection(Firewire is just a really fast serial interface) all at the same time, and at the same time as all the other people in your workgroup are using the same peripherals. And no toggle switches required! Woohoo!

Add to this the convenience of file transfers at 4x the speed of 100Mbps Ethernet, without all the hassle of setting network options, and you have a Mac workgroup admin's wildest wet dream(except without the hot blonde chicks).
Re:cluster me crazy by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-04 07:45 · Score: 0

It's low enough latency for audio and video. I wouldn't worry about it much.

The major downside to it is that you can only cluster 64 boxes. You'd need an Ethernet link to make another Firewire cluster after that.
Re:cluster me crazy by jcr · 2002-12-04 08:13 · Score: 2

Yes, the firewire connection doesn't require a hub or router. You can just daisy-chain FW-equipped machines.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:cluster me crazy by n.wegner · 2002-12-04 08:54 · Score: 1

Lots of legacy imacs/ibooks don't have firewire either, AFAIK. At least I don't think my mom's 333 imac does.
Re:cluster me crazy by EyeSavedLatin · 2002-12-04 08:58 · Score: 1

I don't necessarily believe that a Firewire network would be a lot cheaper. I can pick up the latest and greatest, standardized CAT 6 UTP cable and connectors for pretty cheap. If you've ever been in a large computer room, you know that patch cord/cable routing is huge, and I have yet to see a firewire patch panel. Also, the max length for copper cable is over 300 feet, I doubt that's the case for firewire, though I admit to not knowing. For large applications such as clustering, I think Gig-E is going to be the solution for anything serious. However, if you're clustering 3 computers, go for it!

--
Hansel USA - Chut up and read!
Re:cluster me crazy by Ponty · 2002-12-04 09:44 · Score: 2

Yea, but more have it than have Gigabit enet =) (My G3 PowerBook has FireWire and using target mode is cool, but it requires a reboot.)
Re:cluster me crazy by dr00g911 · 2002-12-04 09:58 · Score: 2

I personally cringe at the thought of how much a single 50' Firewire cable would cost for small offices. HINT: a *LOT* more than CAT5e/6. I'd wager pricing on par with Fiber -- daisy chained, no less -- so if a machine gets pulled or powered off, poof goes that link.

Workgroups in the same room, clusters or labs? Groovy... but once you start talking about multiple rooms or more than 4 or 5 machines, I have the feeling that it's gonna be REALLY cost prohibitive.

That's just not what the tech is designed for, methinks. I'm thinking that clustering is really what this is all about.

And now I'm drooling over a few Xserves or desktops clustered via Firewire 2 as a rendering farm.
Re:cluster me crazy by stux · 2002-12-04 10:03 · Score: 2

The FW topology is limited to 64 devices...

I don't think you're going to see large FW LANs ;)

BUT then again, this is IP... just have one machinbe with two fw cards too bridge the subnets ;)

--

---
Live Long & Prosper \\//_
CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
Jedi & Last *-fytr
Re:cluster me crazy by WatertonMan · 2002-12-04 10:36 · Score: 2

I believe that this is the only reason for it that makes sense. Presumably it would allow some manufacturers, such as HP, to leverage a lot of their existing network code to better serve the Macintosh market. Whether that happens, of course, is a whole other kettle of fish. While printing has improved dramatically, it still is rather lacking.
Overall though I see this as part of Apple's strategy for true fast plug and play peripherals. Rendezvous is an other part of it. Actual real world applications aren't really available. So we'll see how it all pans out. Apple's had exciting technology before that rarely got used. (OpenDoc, QuickdrawGX, etc.) Given that the Mac is still a small market I'm not sure most peripheral makers will actually end up using all this stuff. Call me skeptical, but I think we need some nice 3rd party companies to offer this sort of thing.
Anyone remember those old laser printers that plugged into the SCSI port? Of course I never thought they worked that well, but I suspect this is setting up a networked version of that. However Apple really needs to offer the peripherals themselves if they want to kickstart the market. Unfortunately the afore mentioned problems of unimplemented cool technology applies to Apple as much as anyone. Take a look at Appleworks and how few OSX features it uses.
Re:cluster me crazy by krel · 2002-12-05 05:27 · Score: 1

Holy jedi knight, i bow before you in your holy wisdom, and ask when the move to sydney will be complete so i can get me 3ivx pro ;-)

--
karma: ouch!

Windows... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-04 04:32 · Score: 1, Interesting

Is it possible to connect macs with windows machines using this?

Re:Windows... by justzisguy · 2002-12-04 04:57 · Score: 1

I played around with networking my PowerBook G4 to my Windoze box and was unable to get file sharing over FireWire to work. Maybe I'm not trying hard enough or perhaps it's because this is a preview release...
Re:Windows... by commodoresloat · 2002-12-04 09:34 · Score: 2

Why not? This is just TCP/IP, right? as long as the hardware will connect why wouldn't it treat it like any other connection using IP?
Re:Windows... by nuckin+futs · 2002-12-04 16:33 · Score: 1

the problem is...
Sometimes MS likes to "embrace and extend" protocols so it's close enough to the real thing, but only works on their own stuff.
Re:Windows... by buzzsport · 2002-12-05 07:43 · Score: 1

I can confirm the following configuration:

New iMac 17" connecting to WinXP 100mb/FireWire Bridge w/ generic firewire (TI compat) card.

Seems pretty seemless to me.
Re:Windows... by commodoresloat · 2002-12-05 09:52 · Score: 2

true but this is TCP/IP we're talking about. If a windows box can telnet or ftp to a mac server on the real internet, it should work with IP over firewire the same way, no?
Re:Windows... by nuckin+futs · 2002-12-06 12:33 · Score: 1

If a windows box can telnet or ftp to a mac server on the real internet, it should work with IP over firewire the same way, no?

That's the problem. the keyword there is should .You never know with them if it will play nice with other Operating Systems or not. If they followed Open Standard protocols, it will work if everything is set up correctly.
Re:Windows... by kableh · 2002-12-10 03:37 · Score: 2

I've noticed since I installed Windows XP I have a "1394 Connection" listed under Network Connections. OS X can share files to Windows using Samba, so I think that covers it!

Hey, they're innovating again by eht · 2002-12-04 04:41 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Oh wait, WinXP already saw firewire devices as network connections and you've been able to do this on PC's for quite a while now

Re:Hey, they're innovating again by sporty · 2002-12-04 04:51 · Score: 2

Heh, don't get me wrong, but the idea of using a cable as a network medium is older than Windows.

Ethernet, serial cables, RS-232, SCSI..

--
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
Re:Hey, they're innovating again by zmalone · 2002-12-04 05:05 · Score: 2, Informative

Way to go with your innovate thinking. Apple is one of the major companies behind firewire, and they have been working on the standard for years. I seem to recall finding early references to firewire going back to 1995. So if Apple comes up with a standard, which Microsoft then implements before them, thats Microsoft innovating?

I can't make up my mind as to whether you are trolling, or just poorly informed.
Re:Hey, they're innovating again by eht · 2002-12-04 05:47 · Score: 1

trolling

apple wasn't one of the major companies behind firewire, they pretty much were the only company behind firewire, hence all the firewire trademark bitching that went on a while ago

usb was also "around" in 95, just not quite standardized, some motherboard's from that era had usb ports on them, just no wires connecting them to anything else since no one ever expected anyone to use it at the time

i think neither microsoft nor apple are really innovative anymore, if they ever were, firewire is pretty much just a subset of scsi, with a little bit of whipped cream thrown on top, so it's not as if they were innovating to come up with it in the first place, and it's quite superior to both usb and usb2, even though theoretically usb2 runs faster

win2k had alpha blending on the desktop before aqua ever came along, but so did many x window managers

apple's plug and pray? yeah if you plug it in it just works, or it doesn't, windows sometimes makes you go through a hassle of getting something to work, but hey it works, and working hardware is bad

look at my comments for the past couple weeks, trying to get rid of any positive karma i have by speaking the truth, too bad it isn't working and so many people aren't interested in the truth anyways
Re:Hey, they're innovating again by sco08y · 2002-12-04 06:36 · Score: 1

if they ever were, firewire is pretty much just a subset of scsi, with a little bit of whipped cream thrown on top

First off, it's a superset. SCSI has asynchronous mode, FireWire has that + isochronous mode. (Guaranteed bandwidth.) This allows totally new applications, such as digital cameras.

All nodes on firewire are potential hosts or peripherals, which again allows totally different applications, such as target-disk mode. (Hold Command Option and T with your iBook and another Mac can access it like an external disk. A PC could access it if it had MacDrive or something similar. Apple's got a tech note somewhere.)

Firewire is powered (allows new mobile applications) and is actually plug and play, so it's much easier for consumers.

All in all, these are substantial differences from SCSI. How's it a subset anyway? No annoying clickers for setting the IDs? No messing with termination?
Re:Hey, they're innovating again by eht · 2002-12-04 07:12 · Score: 1, Informative

http://www.sweetwater.com/insync/word/firewire

A subset of the SCSI-3 standard, also known as IEEE 1394, Firewire is a new high speed data exchange protocol developed at Apple. Occasionally it is referred to as "serial SCSI" because it is a serial protocol and conforms to SCSI standards as well. It is now a common interface on new digital video equipment and is beginning to be used in audio as well. FireWire is fast: it starts at 100 Megabits per second and goes on up past 400 Mbs, easily handling the bandwidth required for a 30 frame-per-second 640x480 pixel datastream from a prosumer video camera. FireWire supports asynchronous (see WFTD archive asynchronous) transfers, as well as isochronous (see WFTD archive isochronous) transfers so that a stream of video from a video camera can co-exist on the same FireWire bus with another sending device, yet the bus will still carry the video images continuously without discontinuities. Another benefit of FireWire is that it is a hot swappable technology (see WFTD archive hot swap) and allows 63 devices on a buss with auto termination and identification

a subset would be missing some features, a superset would have all those features plus more, it's kind of a combination

ahh /. i love thee my top level posting pointing out that windows xp has had this for sometime gets flames
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid= 46825&ci d=4811055
this one gets modded up for interesting
Re:Hey, they're innovating again by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-04 08:18 · Score: 0

I think the "subset" is referring to the SBP3 protocol. IEEE 1394 is actually specified without reference to SBP. The basic asynchronous and isochronous transport types are all there is (along with special things like device enumeration). SPB2, which was borrowed from SCSI, was implemented on top of basic 1394 asychronous protocol. SBP 3 is the next rev of SPB2. Other protocols, like AV, audio, and IP are siblings to SPB2, in that they all sit at the same level in the stack, and all of them can co-exist at the same time.
Re:Hey, they're innovating again by Guy+Harris · 2002-12-04 12:06 · Score: 3, Informative

A subset of the SCSI-3 standard, also known as IEEE 1394, Firewire is a new high speed data exchange protocol developed at Apple. Occasionally it is referred to as "serial SCSI" because it is a serial protocol and conforms to SCSI standards as well.

They stated that in a fashion that is, at best, a bit confusing. This draft specification for the SCSI architectural model shows on page 10 a diagram showing that there are several interconnect layers for SCSI, including the classic parallel SCSI bus (SPI), and three count 'em three serial layers, namely Fibre Channel (FC-PH), FireWire ("IEEE 1394 High Performance Serial Bus"), and IBM SSA (SSA-PH), with each interconnect layer having a protocol used to implement SCSI on that layer.
Then there are the SCSI commands, which are mostly if not entirely independent of the interconnect layer and protocol. They can be sent over parallel SCSI, Fibre Channel+FCP, FireWire+SBP, SSA-PH+SSP, {pick your link layer}+IP+TCP+iSCSI, Ethernet+HyperSCSI, or the Serial ATA link layer+serial attached SCSI, and, apparently USB+some way of sending SCSI commands over USB. (There certainly don't seem to be many bit-serial links over which you can send SCSI commands and replies.... :-))
FireWire isn't "SCSI", it's an interconnect over which you can send SCSI commands and replies. It's also an interconnect over which you can send stuff that has nothing to do with SCSI, e.g. IP datagrams (we ignore here the possiblity of IP datagrams containing TCP segments that make up iSCSI PDUs :-)), just as Fibre Channel is an interconnect over which you can send SCSI commands and replies, as well as stuff that has nothing to do with SCSI, e.g. IP datagrams, and just as USB is an interconnect over which you can send SCSI commands and replies, as well as stuff that has nothing to do with SCSI, including network packets.

Linking more than 2 computers by signingis · 2002-12-04 04:43 · Score: 0, Redundant

What are the possibilities of linking 3 or 4 computers? Do existing firewire hubs allow this to work?

--

I prefer a void in conversation to a vacuous one.

Re:Linking more than 2 computers by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-04 05:23 · Score: 1, Informative

FireWire supports daisy chain so all you need is a bunch of 6 pin to 6 pin and utilize the two ports on the back of your towers.

IP over FireWire? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-04 04:43 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I don't think I would pee over FireWire - the risk of electrical shock is just too great.

FireWire Target Disk Mode by justzisguy · 2002-12-04 04:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

I've been using FireWire Target Disk Mode for transferring large files from my PowerBook G4 (original release, didn't include Gigabit Ethernet) to my desktop system. Finally I no l longer have to shut down the machine to sync them up, now if only they get AppleTalk working...

Re:FireWire Target Disk Mode by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-04 05:57 · Score: 0

eh? correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought they were phasing out AppleTalk. As far as I understand it, AppleTalk was included so it could talk to legacy hardware and printers, and nothing more. Rendevouz is supposed to replace AppleTalk, so I can't see how Apple would have any reason to keep making enhancements to AppleTalk.
Re:FireWire Target Disk Mode by tim1724 · 2002-12-04 06:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why would you want and/or need AppleTalk?

AFP (Apple Filing Protocol, what the marketing people call "AppleShare") works great over TCP.

Given Jaguar's support for Rendevous and AFP over TCP, what does AppleTalk get you? AppleTalk's only place in today's world is for compatibility with legacy machines, but that doesn't apply here, as Apple only supplies this software for Jaguar.

--
-- Tim Buchheim
Re:FireWire Target Disk Mode by bill_mcgonigle · 2002-12-04 06:49 · Score: 2

now if only they get AppleTalk working...

Rendezvous should handle most of what Phase I AppleTalk provided.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:FireWire Target Disk Mode by Gropo · 2002-12-04 11:02 · Score: 2

...now if only they get AppleTalk working...
I recently tried a simple GigE-to-100BaseT network between my first-gen G4 and my G/F's second-gen. Couldn't get Appletalk working either, then today I noticed that Appletalk was disabled under the "Directory Access" utility... Give that a whirl (I haven't bothered to lug her machine back in here and try it out yet).

--
I hate Grammar Nazi's
Re:FireWire Target Disk Mode by anarkhos · 2002-12-04 17:21 · Score: 2

AppleTalk is easier to discover on a network.

--
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
Re:FireWire Target Disk Mode by tim1724 · 2002-12-05 07:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

The whole point of Rendevouz (a combination of automatic link-local address assignment, multicast DNS, and service discovery) is to provide all the ease of use of AppleTalk on an IP network.

When you connect two machines together with FireWire and have IP over FireWire enabled, they will assign themselves link-local IP addresses, exchange name information via multicast DNS, and advertise their services (such as file or printer sharing) to each other.

The machines will automatically appear in the Finder's "Connect to Server" window, the same way they would if they were running AppleTalk. Shared printers will automatically appear in the Print Center and in print dialogs.

AppleTalk is not any easier than that!

--
-- Tim Buchheim
Re:FireWire Target Disk Mode by anarkhos · 2002-12-05 16:03 · Score: 2

I thought Rendevouz was for service discovery in the MAC addressing plane.

--
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life

It's at least another option by Spencerian · 2002-12-04 05:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

Currently you can connect most Macs together by a crossover Ethernet cable for networking. Alternatively, if you just need to move something between two boxes, you can use a FireWire cable and mount another hard drive with Target Disk Mode (which someone noted earlier).

So IP over FireWire adds to the diversity. Today, you don't even need a crossover cable with the Gigabit Ethernet ports on most Macs. Just use a regular CAT5 to connect them.

Having this option, from my techie POV, allows me to connect to another Mac should the user's Ethernet port go cranky. I'd have to think a little more for additional applications, but perhaps a cheap, high speed FireWire LAN for gaming or small home networks would be useful. I would think you can share a cable modem connection in this manner, too. I better RTFdocs.

--
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.

Re:It's at least another option by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-05 04:27 · Score: 0

I tried to do this previously to no avail, what do I need to set in Network settings on both machines for them to see each other? Rendezvous did not work.

On XP it works nicely. by kmellis · 2002-12-04 05:11 · Score: 4, Informative

I've been using IP on 1394 from my desktop box to my Sony laptop. I just bridge my ethernet and firewire NICs on my desktop PC, and the Sony has an Internet connection over Firewire (which they call "i.Link"). It works great. Theoretically, I should be seeing four times the bandwidth on the 1394 link than I see with 100 Ethernet, but in reality it's not that big of a difference. As people are saying about gig-ethernet, other things, like the PCI bus, start to be limiting factors.

Re:On XP it works nicely. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-04 08:46 · Score: 1, Insightful

The Mac architecture has the firewire port hanging off the Northbridge chip, not on the PCI bus.

This is the same chip that the ethernet port hangs off as well. This allows high bandwith access to memory, and this is especially good on the new DDR RAM based computers, which can serve up a lot of data very quickly.
Re:On XP it works nicely. by TiMac · 2002-12-04 09:40 · Score: 2

I should be seeing four times the bandwidth on the 1394 link than I see with 100 Ethernet, but in reality it's not that big of a difference. As people are saying about gig-ethernet, other things, like the PCI bus, start to be limiting factors.
I bet that your laptop's HD is also one of the limiting factors. Even if it is ATA/66 or ATA/100, the sustained read/write rate is not going to be full, and you'll be limited there as well.
But PCI is undoubtedly an issue as well. I know that the new PowerMacs have the "Xserve architecture" with the Firewire, USB, etc busses on a controller (Agere ASIC I believe) that is attached to the Northbridge...so Firewire probably WILL be faster in some cases on one of them. Someone else posted that other Macs have it direct on the Northbridge...though I cannot confirm or deny that...Firewire is always on the mobo though.

--

Oh, come on by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-04 05:12 · Score: 0

if Apple comes up with a standard, which Microsoft then implements before them, thats Microsoft innovating?

Well, yes: Microsoft is indeed first to market with an actual thing you can use. Of course, relatively few PCs have FireWire, so it's kind of a pointless innovation, but whatever.

Re:Oh, come on by tyrione · 2002-12-04 07:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

No I do believe iLink that Sony adapted from Apple's Firewire and developed for XP is the skillful use, not Microsoft since afterall, Firewire is an "add-on" by 3rd parties and hence the sole responsibility of the 3rd party, not Microsoft.

Someone could correct me and I'd be more the wiser.

Apple since it has Firewire built-into OS X wasn't about to do IP over Firewire until they sorted out all the "critical needs" first for Mac Users. Adding a kernel extension tells me its been in the testing stage for quite some time but relinquished as unimportant until now when Apple's Digital Lifestyle devices become more of a reality to market.

Steve likes to have all his ducks-in-a-row before dazzling the crowds.
Re:Oh, come on by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-04 08:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

...and they'll need IP over firewire so that they can use Rendezvous to connect to Philip's up and coming devices.

e.g. you'll be able to control your tv via firewire, or you'll be able to record TV on your mac.

1600 Mbit Firewire by ibib · 2002-12-04 05:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

When we've got faster Firewire, like 800-1600 Mbit, this will make a huge difference. Instead of Investing in expensive Gigabit-Ethernet switches and cables, just use Firewire instead. Maybe not the ideal solution for all, but for small companies and Lan-parties =) this could be great.

Re:1600 Mbit Firewire by stux · 2002-12-04 10:00 · Score: 2

The big problem is FW cables are relatively expensive.

I buy ethernet by the 100m roll... and 50 crimps at a time...

the price of an ethernet cable (after my time, damnit) is literally a few dollars.

I've always ended up paying 10x that for FW cables :(

And long ones are even more expensive ;)

--

---
Live Long & Prosper \\//_
CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
Jedi & Last *-fytr
Re:1600 Mbit Firewire by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-04 12:29 · Score: 0

I think what we're seeing is the emergence of a new, single computer connection standard.

There is Wireless LAN, of course, but that's not nearly fast enough for serious file transfer.

With Gigabit Ethernet, you have running between all the machines on your network
a single cable,
hot-pluggable,
carrying file transfers,
high-bandwidth storage,
*and* networking,
running off cheap hubs,
doing away with Ethernet.
Add Rendezvous.

Would make networks or clusters a hella easier and faster to set up and maintain.

And it's definitely a good alternative until wLAN becomes a) as fast or faster, and b) as secure as cable (hah!).

Another intriguing possibility:
You have your PDA/phone combo, with a built-in hard drive for data and music, and a Firewire 2 port, Rendezvous, and a 'Book with FW 2 (iPod owners' dream, at least mine). Fast, mobile internet anywhere (once the bandwidth is available on cellphones, but that shouldn't be long). Standard FW cable.

-spheric*

second NIC card by xj9000 · 2002-12-04 05:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

another advatage i see to this would be using the FireWire port as a second ethernet device. You could connect your mac to two seperate networks allowing "secure" communication through one card and standard communication through the other. If you already have a FireWire port why add a second NIC card... which might not be possible in a portable.

Now if my DSL could only go faster than 128k up by BoomerSooner · 2002-12-04 05:17 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Then i'd be happy.

Before you reply here's my status on DSL.
Symetric (SBC) is not available in my area.
Enhanced (6mbps/384mbps) costs 180/mo (I pay
80/mo as it is for my business class DSL)

The router they made me over pay for ($378) is a piece of shit (needs turning off and restarting almost daily, this is a "solution" on their (SBC) website).

Overall a real piece of shit service, but when you need a static IP Address it's one of the few ways to go in my area.

Re:Now if my DSL could only go faster than 128k up by aminorex · 2002-12-04 06:49 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Your post is so completely offtopic that its plaintive
whimpering cry for help has been heard. A little
blue fairy told me to instruct you:

Write a letter to your state PUC and tell them you're
moving to Korea.

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-

Any iPod-based Applications? by kalidasa · 2002-12-04 05:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

I know this is for OS X, and the OS on the iPod is different, but what about using IP-over-Firewire for IP synching of iPods?

Re:Any iPod-based Applications? by dubstop · 2002-12-04 05:45 · Score: 2, Funny

A beowulf cluster of iPods?
Re:Any iPod-based Applications? by WatertonMan · 2002-12-04 08:00 · Score: 2

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Right now the iPod *already* syncs over Firewire. Or do you mean remote syncing when you are on the road? Plug into a friend's Mac and sync with your computer back home?
That might work, but would mean that you'd have to have a lot working in between. (i.e. you couldn't be behind a general NAT server, the ports can't be hidden by a firewall, etc.) There are other issues as well.
Don't get me wrong, it is doable. But it seems that for a general solution for the general public there are too many things that could go wrong. Try explaining to the non-technical Mac user why their ISP is blocking this feature.
Further, who really needs that sort of thing? It sounds to me like a nice 3rd party opportunity. But even there you'd still need the software on the Mac hosting your iPod's connection to the net. I suspect though that all you'd need to do is snag that iPod software for Linux (opensource) and then add a bit of a socking talking (easy and you could crib it from an FTP server if you must).
So the project isn't that hard. I'm just not sure but what it is a solution in search of a problem though. After all don't you typically need to sync only when you've changed what music is in iTunes? And if you've done that, aren't you already in front of your computer? So why the need for an IP connection between the iPod and your computer?
Re:Any iPod-based Applications? by GMontag451 · 2002-12-04 09:14 · Score: 2

I think what he's talking about is iPod to iPod syncing. But yeah, there's no need for IP-over-Firewire to do that either.
Re:Any iPod-based Applications? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-04 09:15 · Score: 0

Hmmm, perhaps the iPod could be set as a mini-jukebox, so any computers on the network could access the iPod. Kinda like a mini Music/File Server. Of course, you can set up a regular computer to do the job, but this would be a nice bonus to iPod owners. One less computer in the house/office.

Maybe, Apple could have the iPod as the hub for not only music and stored files, but also calendars, contacts, etc...
Re:Any iPod-based Applications? by Wesley+Felter · 2002-12-04 09:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

The iPod doesn't have a networking stack, so that would require a lot of work.
Re:Any iPod-based Applications? by rf600r · 2002-12-05 13:58 · Score: 1

It's already connected. What would you possibly gain? Think about it.
Re:Any iPod-based Applications? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-05 23:07 · Score: 0

> The iPod doesn't have a networking stack, so that
> would require a lot of work.

You are underestimating it. Time will tell.
Re:Any iPod-based Applications? by ahacop@wmuc.umd.edu · 2002-12-06 09:44 · Score: 1

Not that I wouldn't dig it...but considering Apple has attempted to restrict the copying of songs from iPod _to_ desktop it is unlikely that they'll introduce iPod-to-iPod transfers.

Repeat after me: by Genady · 2002-12-04 05:36 · Score: 4, Funny

IP Over Firewire is not the new localtalk. IP Over Firewire is not the new localtalk. IP Over Firewire is not... oh the hell with it.

Why do I see the little daisy chain boxes showing up in schools again?

(But you see Mr. School administrator with shrinking funds, you don't need to buy a hub or switch, we've got that covered.)

--

What if it is just turtles all the way down?

Re:Repeat after me: by mjpaci · 2002-12-04 05:45 · Score: 2

The cost of 6-PIN to 6-PIN Firewire cables would break any school's budget.

--Mike
Re:Repeat after me: by Frymaster · 2002-12-04 05:51 · Score: 2, Funny

and what was wrong with localtalk?

we used to go down to the pc labs and invit all those poor netbeui users to come upstairs and watch us route.

--
2 1337 4 u!
Re:Repeat after me: by Genady · 2002-12-04 06:05 · Score: 2

Why do you need 6pin - 6pin firewire cables. You just need a converter to run firewire over Cat5.

--

What if it is just turtles all the way down?
Re:Repeat after me: by Wesley+Felter · 2002-12-04 10:01 · Score: 2

Nope; Cat5 can't support the 400MHz signaling rate that 1394 uses (IIRC). That's why 1394 cables are shielded. Maybe you could run at S100 speed over Cat5, but I'd rather use Ethernet in that case.
Re:Repeat after me: by stux · 2002-12-04 10:07 · Score: 2

FireCat ;)

hehe, just just PhoneNet for LocalTalk cabling ;)

--

---
Live Long & Prosper \\//_
CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
Jedi & Last *-fytr
Re:Repeat after me: by anarkhos · 2002-12-04 17:23 · Score: 2

I bought a 15ft firewire cable for $9

Forgot where though...

--
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
Re:Repeat after me: by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-05 03:59 · Score: 0

How long did it take for your house to catch fire afterwards?
Re:Repeat after me: by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-05 18:22 · Score: 0

The cost of 6-PIN to 6-PIN Firewire cables would break any school's budget.

You obviously didn't buy LocalTalk cables from Apple back in the day.

Ok, IP over FW but... by Znonymous+Coward · 2002-12-04 05:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

How do you connect it to an ethernet switch or hub? Or is this strictly for FW to FW connectins?

Any ideas?

--

Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.

Re:Ok, IP over FW but... by Genady · 2002-12-04 06:09 · Score: 2

Ummm, you don't. You put a Firewire/IP card in your router and then route between the networks. Kinda like you do now with Tokin Ring. You remember Tokin Ring don't you? FDDI? StarNet? er...

--

What if it is just turtles all the way down?
Re:Ok, IP over FW but... by iangoldby · 2002-12-04 07:56 · Score: 1

No one has said so explicitly so far, but presumably each firewire cable is a simple peer to peer connection. So to connect 3 computers, you need two cables, and at least one computer with 2 or more firewire ports. That central computer would then route IP packets between the two end computers.

If that's correct, then it's really quite immaterial what medium each segment of the network uses. You could replace one of the firewire cables with IR, or ethernet, or 'Wet-piece-of-string'(TM) and nothing would fundamentally change. Each time a packet needed to get to a non-adjacent computer, it would be routed by each intermediate machine. I believe that's how networking was first done before ethernet allowed connecting more than two computers to the same bit of copper.

The good thing is that the actual medium for the signal is abstracted away and applications only need to know about IP packets. So you just need a network stack that can route packets between different network interfaces, which is pretty-much bog standard and the way IP is supposed to work anyway.
Re:Ok, IP over FW but... by GMontag451 · 2002-12-04 09:17 · Score: 2

Simple, just setup routing between your FireWire interface and your Ethernet interface. Then connect that computer to the hub or switch.
Re:Ok, IP over FW but... by Wesley+Felter · 2002-12-04 10:06 · Score: 2

No one has said so explicitly so far, but presumably each firewire cable is a simple peer to peer connection. So to connect 3 computers, you need two cables, and at least one computer with 2 or more firewire ports. That central computer would then route IP packets between the two end computers.

That's not how it works. All the machines in a FireWire chain are essentially sharing a single broadcast medium, like Ethernet.

Crossover cable by SwissMike · 2002-12-04 06:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

Actually you can use normal cat5 cable to connect any modern Mac and dont have to use a crossover cable. Works for example on my iBook 500 which doesnt have Gigabit Ethernet... It even works when i connect my iBook to a PC! Thats one of the little nice details which make Macs attracting more on more of my computer science student fellows...

Re:Crossover cable by Spencerian · 2002-12-04 06:23 · Score: 3, Informative

I oversimplified, you're right.

This link from Apple's support page tells which Macs do and do not need a crossover cable today.

--
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
Re:Crossover cable by GMontag451 · 2002-12-04 09:11 · Score: 2

Actually, I found it to be quite annoying, especially if you don't know about it. I was trying to set up a consumer gateway router for a friend with DSL who had one of the models that supports that. He had his DSL modem connected to his computer with a pass-through cable, but when I tried to connect the same cable from the DSL modem to the WAN port of the router, the WAN link light wouldn't light up. After several frustrating calls to Verizon support (they supplied the modem), I, out of desperation, used a crossover cable to connect the DSL modem and router even though it shouldn't do anything. But lo and behold, it works. Having the Mac be able to use either type of cable led me to jump to incorrect conclusions, and wasted several hours of my time.
Re:Crossover cable by jericho4.0 · 2002-12-04 09:24 · Score: 2

I have several computers intergrated into my house (meaning behind furniture, under stuff, in closets,etc). I recently spent about an hour moving crap around to free up a cable for my G4, only to find I could have just used the crossover cable in plain view.Damn.

--
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
Re:Crossover cable by TiMac · 2002-12-04 09:33 · Score: 2

No offense intended, but you can't blame this on Apple in any way. It's your fault for not knowing you need a Crossover Cable to go from a Cable/DSL modem to a router. If you're going from a Cable/DSL modem to a hub you can use a Patch cable, but IIRC any time you're going to a device that has its own IP (router, a single computer, etc) you need a crossover. RTFM for the modem--I bet it said you needed one...mine did.

--
Re:Crossover cable by stux · 2002-12-04 09:56 · Score: 2

Unless its a modern mac ;)

Modern macs just don't care

--

---
Live Long & Prosper \\//_
CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
Jedi & Last *-fytr
Re:Crossover cable by GMontag451 · 2002-12-04 12:13 · Score: 2

No offense intended, but you can't blame this on Apple in any way. It's your fault for not knowing you need a Crossover Cable to go from a Cable/DSL modem to a router. If you're going from a Cable/DSL modem to a hub you can use a Patch cable, but IIRC any time you're going to a device that has its own IP (router, a single computer, etc) you need a crossover. RTFM for the modem--I bet it said you needed one...mine did.
First of all, only select few Cable/DSL modems require a crossover cable to connect to anything. Most just require a patch cable like a normal ethernet device. It has nothing to do with whether or not the device has its own IP, but rather how the physical port is wired.
Second, I didn't have the manual, I was at my friends house, so I couldn't RTFM.
Third, it wasn't the requirement of a crossover that confused me, it was the fact that the DSL modem was working perfectly with a regular patch cable hooked to the computer that threw me. Since I hadn't known about this Auto-MDI-X stuff that Apple is doing, I thought that there is no way it could require a crossover, since it obviously required a patch.
Re:Crossover cable by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-06 14:28 · Score: 0

Quit your goddamn bitching.
I cannnot believe you're crying because of this feature.
You're pissed because you made a goddamn fool out of yourself in front of your friend.
He probably assumes you're the "Techie Guy" and you made a goddamn ass out of yourself didn't you?
Fucking moron.
God hates you.

Imagine a ... by JHromadka · 2002-12-04 06:19 · Score: 2, Funny

Beo--oh nevermind. It's a tired old joke, even if it's appropriate here. :)

--
"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft

Re:Imagine a ... by Znonymous+Coward · 2002-12-04 07:05 · Score: 1

I still think its funny. Why does it always get modded down?

--
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.

6-pin cable, dollar a foot by AHumbleOpinion · 2002-12-04 07:42 · Score: 2

The cost of 6-PIN to 6-PIN Firewire cables would break any school's budget

A local electronic parts shop, specializing in connectors and cabling, is selling 6-pin firewire cables for US$1 a foot. Since the computers would be daisy chained that's typically what, $5-10 per computer on average?

It deleted my network settings by tim1724 · 2002-12-04 07:42 · Score: 2

hmm. I installed it on my powerbook, but it had the annoying side effect of deleting all my network settings. (all of my "locations" are gone in the Network preference pane, had to set them up again)

I've filed a bug report with Apple. Hopefully it was just some oddity with my machine.

--
-- Tim Buchheim

Re:It deleted my network settings by Corbett_ · 2002-12-04 07:50 · Score: 1

Nope, it toasted my locations too :-(
Re:It deleted my network settings by linuxbert · 2002-12-04 17:20 · Score: 2

mee to grrrrrrr..
i had 10 of them too..
Re:It deleted my network settings by pfooosk · 2002-12-05 05:16 · Score: 1

Deleted mine too. All 7 of them.

Deleted my machine name in the Sharing Preferences Pane too.

Hmm.
Re:It deleted my network settings by tim1724 · 2002-12-05 07:50 · Score: 4, Informative

aha.. macfixit.com has the solution. It turns out that for some reason /var/db/SystemConfiguration/preferences.xml is renamed to preferences.xml-old .. so just move it back:

cd /var/db/SystemConfiguration/
mv preferences.xml-old preferences.xml

--
-- Tim Buchheim

Performing worse than 100Mbps by Leimy · 2002-12-04 09:22 · Score: 2

I just tried it here and its slightly worse than fast ethernet. Probably due to its prerelease status... No doubt its cool stuff though the performance is very erratic.

Wouldn't this be sweet for clustering? by foniksonik · 2002-12-04 10:56 · Score: 2

I'd like to hear about using IP over firwire for clustering purposes, are there any advantages besides price? does Firewire/1394 use a different bus or i/o than ethernet and could this increase overall throughput or decrease latency issues when clustering?

I mean jeez what better way to set up a beowul.... ;-p

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.

Re:Wouldn't this be sweet for clustering? by Leimy · 2002-12-05 04:21 · Score: 2

It might be... the message I posted about currently getting < 100Mbps performance from firewire ethernet was exactly a test on a cluster of firewire. [Albeit a cluster of 2 nodes but it was running an MPI job].

Dave

Four Little Words... by vought · 2002-12-04 11:53 · Score: 1

Apple Network Attached Storage

Just wait.

Re:Four Little Words... by DA-MAN · 2002-12-08 13:58 · Score: 1

aka Beowulf of iPods

--
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum

what I had submitted by rakerman · 2002-12-04 13:45 · Score: 2

Here is a slightly bulked up version of my submission for this story:

Ok first, the official name used to be IEEE-1394, but not surprisingly, eventually they decided to just go with FireWire (which was previously an Apple-only name for the technology). Current version is 1394a which tops out at 400 Mbps, next is 1394b which starts at 800 Mbps.

Apple has been a strong proponent and developer of the technology. Sony also (they like to call it i.Link) Mostly it is used to connect to DV cams, but you can also use it for other peripherals that need high speed. I use it for my external hard drive and an external CD burner. But of course, you could also in theory use it for networking. Hence, IP-over-FireWire (as compared to say, the current IP-over-Ethernet). The standard specifying this is RFC 2734. (To be very technical, this only specifies the IPv4 implementation.)

Microsoft supports 1394 and in particular had an IP1394 stack for a while, in ME and now in XP. The Linux 1394 project has been working on it, but it had a lot of trouble getting off the ground. And now (finally) IP1394 is available from Apple.

It will be interesting to see if the Apple implementation interoperates with the Microsoft one.

My Master's project is on this topic. My school page is sadly out-of-date, I need to update it ASAP.

My take.... by djupedal · 2002-12-04 14:09 · Score: 3, Informative

I've been testing the FireWire networking software solution from
UniBrain. Unibrain's solution, by the way, provides for more than just
I.P. ...it supports other protocols as well. I'm looking forward to
having Firewire networking built into OS X. More choices are good. I'm
wondering if this indicates a move towards next generation 800mbps
Firewire, by Apple, as well.

On my Mac, Firewire networking software provides two more ports similar
to built-in ethernet, and treats them the same in the network panel in
OS X. They show up as two additional ethernet adapters. What I'm really
looking for is the same capability under Linux, so I can connect two
computers using firewire networking...OS X and Mandrake Linux 9.0. So
far, only custom Linux kernals built for clustering offer this ability.
[
http://kenlinux.no-ip.org/gallery/vie w_photo.php?s et_albumName=Stuff-
01&id=net01 ]

Theoretically, I can dual mode the two firewire channels in my
computers to run at 800Mbps (channel bonding). Of course, gigabit
ethernet would provide increased speed, but it would also involve
buying more hardware, at least in my case. Like we say "...run what ya
'brung..." If your hardware provides gigabit ethernet, use it :)

Distance between nodes is a problem for Firewire networking. Maximum
distance is about 15 feet without repeaters, etc. At this time,
Firewire hubs cost approx. the same as ethernet hubs. Note I don't
think that all Firewire hubs offer similar capability/compatibility.
Test before you buy.

Don't forget Apple's Firewire target disc mode if you simply want to
pass files between two computers in a hurry.

Here is a quick little generic Firewire networking guide:
[ http://www.homenethelp.com/network/firewire.asp ]

Unibrain:
[ http://www.unibrain.com/products/ieee-1394/firenet .htm ]
(If you don't qualify as an Apple Developer, but you still wish to take
a look at OS X Firewire networking, Unibrain has a timed demo available
for testing)

Also note that firewire networking is currently a part of Windows XP.
OS X is playing ketchup.

Re:My take.... by rakerman · 2002-12-04 14:43 · Score: 2

good info

Do you know if Unibrain is ever going to release an RFC 2734 compliant FireNet?
Re:My take.... by djupedal · 2002-12-04 14:59 · Score: 2

>RFC 2734 ...no info, sorry. They're pretty tight lipped, at least in my case. They have shown a tendency to release broader coverage apps, and this in turn helps them market their hardware, so.... I suspect there is a lot going on the background right now, with 800mbps Firewire being RSN, and networked free standing storage being the next big thang :)
Re:My take.... by Wesley+Felter · 2002-12-04 15:30 · Score: 2

Now that Apple and Microsoft are giving away RFC 2734 implementations, I can't see why Unibrain would bother to write one.
Re:My take.... by anarkhos · 2002-12-04 17:25 · Score: 2

Doesn't the next firewire also support 100' cables?

--
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life

How big are the frames? by MarcQuadra · 2002-12-04 16:45 · Score: 2

One thing bogging down gig-ethernet today is the tiny 1500K frames. Some card/switch combinations can handle 9K frames, which cuts overhead way down. Anyone know how big the 'frames' in FWIP are. It would be phat if I could adjust it (or if it SELF adjusted!) for either max throughput or minimum latency depending on what it's being used for. BTW, the max IP frame is 64K, AFAIK, which would make transferring large files really efficient, while smaller frames are better suited for realtime streams.

--
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails

Our Company Motto by rf600r · 2002-12-05 07:03 · Score: 2, Funny

As we are fond of saying:

IP On Everything

Did my PowerBook just become a mobile firewall? by amichalo · 2002-12-05 10:44 · Score: 3, Funny

Currently, I can't use my Powerbook as a firewall because I don't have two NIC cards.

By connecting my ethernet card to my cable modem, and my firewire port to my server, my laptop now becomes a FireWireWall :)

Smile, it tastes good

--
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.

Cable length? by hasegawa · 2002-12-05 10:46 · Score: 1

Isn't FireWire cable limited to 15 feet between power sources? Might have to do all the devices in the same room if this is still true, provided you didn't want repeaters. Repeaters could add up though and make this a less effective option.

But hey, at least my friend and I can LAN our iBooks for some good ole MOH:AA or Civ 3 on a plane flight to England! :-)

Some Macs do come with gigabit by Kevinv · 2002-12-05 13:05 · Score: 2

The tower macs and the Titanium PowerBooks both come with gigabit ethernet already. now i just need a gigabit card in my linux server (and i wouldn't mind a gigabit switch while i'm at it).

An Insanely Great PDA! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-05 23:39 · Score: 0

I know it's been mentioned time and time again, but an Apple PDA is around the corner.

As for those crazy pda rumours, see http://theage.com.au/articles/2002/12/04/103895008 9735.html

They've already got a 20GB hard disk inside a PDA enclosure (ipod). IP over firewire would be the next step.

At a previous job I installed Linux on an iPaq. A nice touch, but wifi drains batteries real bad! Plus, it didn't have quite the resources to run our Java app (J2SE - not some useless personaljava crud) seamlessly.

But if there was a pda with 128MB RAM and a 20GB HD, hey, the ultimate geek toy!

It'd blow pocketPC away, this sure beats compact-flash and ActiveSync over USB.

Especially when you don't need to plug it directly into mains power!

The world needs a competitor to the tablet PC too. After all, who really wants an overpriced notebook size device without a keyboard running a MS OS? WinCE made me wince.

Give me a handheld with a real OS, 640x480 screen with TCP/IP and power built into the one cable anyday. Apple, what are you waiting for?

I just hope the price is realistic, though I won't hold my breath...

Will be useful for Audio by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-06 11:25 · Score: 0

...with OSC (open sound control). sends audio data over TCP/IP. as we all know, ethernet is inconsistent, at best. firewire sends packets a bit more regularly.

Not Anymore? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-06 11:52 · Score: 0

Gee, the web site doesn't come back with a page, and when I tried to install it on my system it hung during the installation process. :-( Oh well.

64 devices per controller by visionsofmcskill · 2002-12-06 17:21 · Score: 1

unless you intend to have 63 seperete devices connected to that comp in addition to the next daisy chained computer this wont be an issue as additional comps will not be treated as devices on the chain EXCEPT for those directly connected

--
--Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?

Slashdot Mirror

Apple Releases Preview of IP over FireWire

116 comments