From: visualfor@yahoo.com (Naveed) Newsgroups: comp.arch.fpga Subject: "Ethernet only" network Date: 22 Jun 2003 05:10:17 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 18 Message-ID: <864a80dc.0306220410.20d48e21@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.203.68.97 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1056283818 5701 127.0.0.1 (22 Jun 2003 12:10:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Jun 2003 12:10:18 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch comp.arch.fpga:29840 Hello guys, I have a multiple card system (56 cards), where I download a huge amount of data (~500MB) to each card from PC. I have been using parallel NI "DIO" bus to do that, But it's slow and need very careful termination to work. I have been thinking about using cheap gigabit Ethernet solution. I have Altera's cyclone 1C6 on cards. I can buy gigabit Ethernet MAC+PHY for less than $15, then I can do rest of the processing inside the FPGA. The problem is that 1C6 is not big enough to implement the TCP/IP stack inside (no external memory to store instruction). So I thought, why use TCP/IP? You can talk to just Ethernet to Ethernet. Has anybody ever implemented "Ethernet only" solution using Windows? How do sniffer guys do it by talking directly to NIC? Just looking for big picture here. Any help is appreciated. ###### From: Karsten Becker Newsgroups: comp.arch.fpga Subject: Re: "Ethernet only" network Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 16:26:57 +0200 Lines: 10 Message-ID: References: <864a80dc.0306220410.20d48e21@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: a089091.adsl.hansenet.de (213.191.89.91) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1056292020 26087576 213.191.89.91 (HANSENET 26087576) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030529 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <864a80dc.0306220410.20d48e21@posting.google.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!a089091.adsl.hansenet.DE!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch comp.arch.fpga:29837 Naveed wrote: > So I thought, why use TCP/IP? You can talk to just Ethernet to > Ethernet. Has anybody ever implemented "Ethernet only" solution using > Windows? How do sniffer guys do it by talking directly to NIC? They seem to use the NDIS interface via packet32.dll.. See: http://www.cswl.com/whiteppr/white/ethernet.html Karsten ###### From: visualfor@yahoo.com (Naveed) Newsgroups: comp.arch.fpga Subject: Re: "Ethernet only" network Date: 22 Jun 2003 16:38:55 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 3 Message-ID: <864a80dc.0306221538.4cf769ea@posting.google.com> References: <864a80dc.0306220410.20d48e21@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.161.203.184 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1056325136 23442 127.0.0.1 (22 Jun 2003 23:38:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Jun 2003 23:38:56 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch comp.arch.fpga:29867 Thanks Karsten, That is exactly what I was looking for. Excellent article. ###### From: "Marc Van Riet" Newsgroups: comp.arch.fpga References: <864a80dc.0306220410.20d48e21@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: "Ethernet only" network Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:10:29 +0200 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Lines: 35 Message-ID: <3ef64527$0$1045$ba620e4c@reader1.news.skynet.be> Organization: -= Belgacom Usenet Service =- NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.136.54.251 X-Trace: 1056326951 reader1.news.skynet.be 1045 217.136.54.251:2869 X-Complaints-To: abuse@skynet.be Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!skynet.be!skynet.be!louie!tlk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch comp.arch.fpga:29868 You might also want to have a look at ethereal (www.ethereal.com). It's a program that's handy for monitoring (ethernet) traffic. You could also use UDP instead of TCP. Implementing UDP is easy. And then you don't need to use (or write) any special drivers. If you use fixed IP<->MAC addresses, then you don't even need to implement ARP or anything either. Although e.g. IGMP would be handy, then you can just ping to a card to see if you connection is still OK. Regards, Marc "Naveed" wrote in message news:864a80dc.0306220410.20d48e21@posting.google.com... > Hello guys, > > I have a multiple card system (56 cards), where I download a huge > amount of data (~500MB) to each card from PC. I have been using > parallel NI "DIO" bus to do that, But it's slow and need very careful > termination to work. > > I have been thinking about using cheap gigabit Ethernet solution. I > have Altera's cyclone 1C6 on cards. I can buy gigabit Ethernet > MAC+PHY for less than $15, then I can do rest of the processing inside > the FPGA. The problem is that 1C6 is not big enough to implement the > TCP/IP stack inside (no external memory to store instruction). > > So I thought, why use TCP/IP? You can talk to just Ethernet to > Ethernet. Has anybody ever implemented "Ethernet only" solution using > Windows? How do sniffer guys do it by talking directly to NIC? > > Just looking for big picture here. Any help is appreciated.