Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 11:44:35 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Cc: jhay@mikom.csir.co.za, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPX routing? Message-ID: <199707141844.LAA01772@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199707140949.TAA09576@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Jul 14, 97 07:19:00 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Why? I don't know of any clients that can't do Ethernet_II framing. > > Well, when I asked why half of their workstations used 802.2 and the > other half used 802.3, they complained that it was "too hard" to have > them all work the same. Getting them to move all of them to > Ethernet_II would, I think, have been difficult without a Very Good > Argument. If you have one, I'm all ears of course 8) One good argument is that the 802.3 framining use incomplete packet headers, and is adulterated. The reason it works is because the IPX packet type uses an ID which is an invalid length in a correctly encoded packet, and you can make an exception in recognition on that basis. In reality, IPX on 802.3 is not correctly encapsulated according to the 802.3 specification. How's that? 8-). 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?199707141844.LAA01772>