Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Apple Releases Preview of IP over FireWire

Posted by pudge on Wed Dec 04, 2002 11:21 AM
from the now-i-really-need-to-remember-the-difference-between-MB-and-Mb dept.
Businesses Networking (Apple) Apple Hardware
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."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Apple Releases Preview of IP over FireWire 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • IP over FireWire (Score:5, Funny)

    by tps12 (105590) on Wednesday December 04 2002, @11:27AM (#4810752) Homepage Journal
    Jeez, the MPAA was already upset about IP over Ethernet. This'll drive them up the wall.

  • cluster me crazy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 04 2002, @11:30AM (#4810775)
    Does firewire offer any advantages over gigabit ethernet for building compute clusters?

    • Re:cluster me crazy (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kuwan (443684) on Wednesday December 04 2002, @12:22PM (#4811142) Homepage
      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.

      • 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.
        • 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 ;)

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

      -jcr

  • FireWire Target Disk Mode (Score:3, Interesting)

    by justzisguy (573704) on Wednesday December 04 2002, @11:53AM (#4810936)
    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 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tim1724 (28482) on Wednesday December 04 2002, @01:23PM (#4811702) Homepage Journal
      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.
        • 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!
    • now if only they get AppleTalk working...

      Rendezvous [apple.com] should handle most of what Phase I AppleTalk provided.

  • It's at least another option (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Spencerian (465343) on Wednesday December 04 2002, @12:08PM (#4811035) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • 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...
      • I oversimplified, you're right.

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

        • 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.

  • On XP it works nicely. (Score:4, Informative)

    by kmellis (442405) <kmellis@io.com> on Wednesday December 04 2002, @12:11PM (#4811055) Homepage
    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.
    • 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.

  • 1600 Mbit Firewire (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ibib (464750) on Wednesday December 04 2002, @12:12PM (#4811068) Homepage
    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.
    • 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 ;)
  • 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.

  • Any iPod-based Applications? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kalidasa (577403) on Wednesday December 04 2002, @12:32PM (#4811226) Journal
    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?
    • A beowulf cluster of iPods?
    • 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?

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

  • Repeat after me: (Score:4, Funny)

    by Genady (27988) <gary.rogers@mTWAINac.com minus author> on Wednesday December 04 2002, @12:36PM (#4811255)
    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.)
  • How do you connect it to an ethernet switch or hub? Or is this strictly for FW to FW connectins?

    Any ideas?

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

  • 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.

  • My take.... (Score:3, Informative)

    by djupedal (584558) on Wednesday December 04 2002, @09:09PM (#4815691)
    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.

  • Did my PowerBook just become a mobile firewall? (Score:3, Funny)

    by amichalo (132545) on Thursday December 05 2002, @05:44PM (#4821979)
    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
    • 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..

    • 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.

        • 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 (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            ...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.
            • 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 [t10.org] 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 [a-star.edu.sg], or the Serial ATA link layer+serial attached SCSI [serialattachedscsi.com], 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.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.