From owner-freebsd-current Sun Sep 22 20:55:57 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D6A037B401 for ; Sun, 22 Sep 2002 20:55:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za (zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za [146.64.24.58]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFF2B43E42 for ; Sun, 22 Sep 2002 20:55:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhay@zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za) Received: from zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g8N3thD8048775; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 05:55:43 +0200 (SAT) (envelope-from jhay@zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za) Received: (from jhay@localhost) by zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g8N3tfl7048774; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 05:55:41 +0200 (SAT) (envelope-from jhay) From: John Hay Message-Id: <200209230355.g8N3tfl7048774@zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za> Subject: Re: netns In-Reply-To: <3D8E4752.7907126A@mindspring.com> from Terry Lambert at "Sep 22, 2002 03:42:26 pm" To: tlambert2@mindspring.com (Terry Lambert) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 05:55:41 +0200 (SAT) Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > > Why don't they use the netipx code? Surely netware use ipx. > > > > > > IPX is based on XNS. It differs by one significant field. The > > > SAP (Service Advertisement Protocol) in IPX comed directly from > > > XNS. > > > > So you are agreeing with me that to use netns to do ipx when we > > have netipx does not make sense? :-) > > > > > FWIW. > > > > I know, a lot of my time went into netipx, which was derived from > > netns. I also did IPXrouted which does SAP too. > > I was mostly agreeing with Julian, that if people are using it, it > shouldn't be orphaned because something moved out from under some > otherwise perfectly good code. A lot of people used to do 802.3 > vs. Ethernet II, as well, and they did it for compatability with > legacy systems... so whether it makes technical sense or not, it > might make business sense. 8-). You can tell them it makes business sense to do a s/AF_NS/AF_IPX/g in their code and suddenly they will be able to do even more then before, for instance they will be able to do different frame types on the same wire and one different wires. The netns code can only do one frame type per box, which is a pain if you want to connect part 802.3 and part Ethernet II networks. Yes I know because we run it like that at work. As a bonus FreeBSD get to maintain one piece of code and not two pieces that do almost exactly the same thing. Bugs fixed in one place, enhancements made in one place. I'm sure it makes business sense. :-) John -- John Hay -- John.Hay@icomtek.csir.co.za / jhay@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message