From owner-freebsd-current Sun Sep 22 22: 0:27 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 0950037B404 for ; Sun, 22 Sep 2002 22:00:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sccrmhc03.attbi.com (sccrmhc03.attbi.com [204.127.202.63]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71DEC43E65 for ; Sun, 22 Sep 2002 22:00:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from InterJet.elischer.org ([12.232.206.8]) by sccrmhc03.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020923050021.GGMS28420.sccrmhc03.attbi.com@InterJet.elischer.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 05:00:21 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA32425; Sun, 22 Sep 2002 21:42:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 21:42:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer To: John Hay Cc: Terry Lambert , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: netns In-Reply-To: <200209230355.g8N3tfl7048774@zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, John Hay wrote: > > > > > 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. :-) My original posting was in error.. One of the things I remembered as using XNS actually uses IPX. > > 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 > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message