Apple Releases Preview of IP over FireWire

A user writes, "Apple has finally released IP over FireWire drivers for Mac OS X. It is now possible to connect two or more Macs together with FireWire cables and if needed, FireWire hubs."

Comments

IP over FireWire

[tps12]

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

cluster me crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:cluster me crazy

[kuwan]

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.

FireWire Target Disk Mode

[justzisguy]

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

[tim1724]

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.

Re:FireWire Target Disk Mode

[tim1724]

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!

It's at least another option

[Spencerian]

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.

On XP it works nicely.

[kmellis]

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.

1600 Mbit Firewire

[ibib]

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.

Any iPod-based Applications?

[kalidasa]

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?

[Wesley Felter]

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

Repeat after me:

[Genady]

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.)

Crossover cable

[SwissMike]

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

[Spencerian]

I oversimplified, you're right.

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

Re:Hey, they're innovating again

[Guy Harris]

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.

My take....

[djupedal]

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:It deleted my network settings

[tim1724]

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

Did my PowerBook just become a mobile firewall?

[amichalo]

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