|
||||||||||
On Mar 6, 2007, at 6:01 PM, Alex M wrote: > I don not know we can run IPX on x86 OS, it sounds kind of > contradictory, > but from another hand cpu structure support is only x number of > commands > required, everything else stays the same. So if there is no need > to rebuild > mono, then it shouldn't be as big problem. No, you can't run an x86 instruction stream on the IPX CPUs. yes, m0n0 would need to be re-built. > Do you know the cost of Alvia boards for dual port and for quad port? quite well. http://www.netgate.com/index.php? cPath=60&osCsid=23e36f35f3ddee327be51ca62d876e00 (and now I feel like I've crossed the line) there is no quad port, though there is a 5-port board, where one of the Ethernet MACs in the ixp42x is connected to a 5 port switch. With some work, you can have the switch run 802.1q vlans. http://www.gateworks.com/avila_gw2345.htm We're having cases made for these. (See, I've crossed the line again.) Jim > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Thompson [mailto:jim at netgate dot com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:44 PM > To: Alex M > Cc: Monowall Support List > Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] RE: [m0n0wall-dev] Re: [m0n0wall] Support for > hardware project > > > On Mar 6, 2007, at 5:05 PM, Alex M wrote: > >> >> >>>> But you're the one that proposed using VIA boards and second-source >>>> ethernet cards and wanted to make the centerpiece of the discussion >>>> "price". >> >> No, that was Lee talking about VIA board, I only concerned about >> price > > K. > >>>> I presume that the members of the list want to discuss the >>>> development of m0n0wall, and do NOT wish the discussion to devolve >>>> into a "general solutions for service providers list" >> >> Well I say there is a big cance to end up with Intel CPU that >> doesn't not >> support X86, in that case even if we can get the board for $20, >> some one >> would have to put all mono files on another version of BSD, so that >> would be >> a developers part too. And, and if there will be no one willing to >> do that >> the search for better pricing will do no good as community wont get >> the >> benefit if they can not install mono on it. > > Are you saying its a big 'chance' (risk) to use an Intel CPU that > doesn't execute x86 instructions, or that its a big "change" > to do so? > > Did you know that support for the Intel ixp42x CPUs (specifically the > gateworks boards) has been MFCed to FreeBSD 6.2? > http://freshbsd.org/2007/02/26/23/13/10 > > The biggest problem now is getting the requisite packages to go > through a cross-compiler (harder than it looks) or to build a native > "build" environment. Currently I'm getting one of these to run > FreeBSD 6.2: http://www.intel.com/design/storage/sb.htm > > Though the Freecom box could be interesting as well. > > Running a native build environment 'fixes' the issue of getting the > various packages to run through a cross compiler, modulo byte- > ordering issues > possible for some things. > > pfSense is being put on the Avilia boards. I fully expect that > m0n0wall will follow. Since most of the Avila boards have a CF > socket, and since the work has completed to allow the FreeBSD kernel > to boot from the on-board (non-CF) flash, installing pfSense (or > m0n0) will be no more difficult > than loading a CF with a pre-compiled image and using tftp to load > the kernel in the on-board flash. > > Eliminating the CF socket (with a custom m0n0wall image) and tftp-ing > that into the on-board flash (assuming it can be made to fit in 16MB) > would allow the use of freebsd/m0n0 on the single-socket Gateworks > board. > > Jim > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch > For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch > For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch |