From owner-freebsd-current Wed Sep 11 17:56:25 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA18746 for current-outgoing; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 17:56:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA18741 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 17:56:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id RAA05826; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 17:53:59 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199609120053.RAA05826@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Does IPX routing work? ... Of course. :-) To: michaelh@cet.co.jp (Michael Hancock) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 17:53:59 -0700 (MST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, jhay@mikom.csir.co.za, jkh@time.cdrom.com, current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: from "Michael Hancock" at Sep 12, 96 07:49:04 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > You will need to similarly hack the IPX for FreeBSD if you wish to > > support what Novell calls 802.3 -- there is no encapsulation header, > > and this is the implementation error. > > I thought it was just implemented before IEEE fully defined it. The draft existed, but just like NDS and X.500, Novell implemented it with their own personal "style" in spite of the standard tat was likely, choosing the standard they preferred instead. Like I said before, the protocol number *happens* to be in the illegal length range, so it *happens* to work. Novell could not reasonably expect *all* protocol numbers *ever* assigned to be in in the illegal length range -- there are several protocols to the contrary already; it was definitely a screw-up on their part, standard in draft form or no. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.