Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 17:07:01 -0400 From: dennis@etinc.com (dennis) To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPX Message-ID: <199510102107.RAA01799@etinc.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> It doesn't seem likely that there would be much inter-operability. Our >> router product is >> embedded in our kernel driver and does RIP and SAP in the kernel (no >> daemons). There is an internal >> routing table and separate utilities (we haven't hacked any FreeBSD stuff) >> that can be used >> to display and manage the tables. We use a simple filter (about 3 lines of >> code have to be added >> to any ethernet driver) that passes packets to our driver. Its designed to >> be an autonomous system, >> not something to be permanently included in the system. > >FYI: The NWU (NetWare for UNIX) 4.x uses a similar routing implementation, >where routes are retrieved from the kernel rather than stored as temporary >bindery objects. > >You implementation is compatible with the offering of IPX based services, >like NVT 1.0. > >NVT 2.0 (the current release version) runs on top of SPX. > > >Note that an SPX implementation has the capability of running sliding >window, but the window size is always negotiated to be one packet because >of backward compatability. This would make an SPX implementation more >trivial than it would be if you actually needed to allow a negotiated >value other than one. > SPX runs over IPX, so why would an IPX router care about or be incompatible with either implementation? db ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Emerging Technologies, Inc. http://www.etinc.com Synchronous Communications Cards and Routers For Discriminating Tastes. 56k to T1 and beyond. Frame Relay, PPP, HDLC, and X.25
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199510102107.RAA01799>