Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 09:37:13 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: babkin@hq.icb.chel.su (Serge A. Babkin) Cc: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, jhay@mikom.csir.co.za, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPX routing? Message-ID: <199707151637.JAA03601@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199707150926.PAA08078@hq.icb.chel.su> from "Serge A. Babkin" at Jul 15, 97 03:26:57 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I've looked ayt the Linux code and it seems to me that they > just allow the applied software to decide which encapsulation > type to use: they just fill the full IPX header (that includes > Ethernet header) in user-level software rather than in driver. > It would be not bad to make the IPX implementation more > Linux-like so it would be easy to port Netware emulators. If this is true, then they are not doing full 802.3 encapsulation for 802.3. If this code is not special cased to be IPX specific (it would seem to me that it could not be, if their IPX is in user space), then their 802.3 implementation is not useful for 802.3 packets other than IPX. This is because the IPX packets are only partially encapsulated (Novell misunderstood the 802.3 encapsulation requirements, and never corrected their implementation). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707151637.JAA03601>