From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Feb 19 10:32:55 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id KAA14437
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 1996 10:32:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA14432
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 19 Feb 1996 10:32:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id LAA13105; Mon, 19 Feb 1996 11:26:47 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199602191826.LAA13105@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: BSDi : Internet Gateway for Novell Networks
To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 11:26:47 -0700 (MST)
Cc: phil@zipmail.co.uk, hackers@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <18792.824712223@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Feb 18, 96 10:43:43 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > One of these was a system called the BSDi Internet gateway for novell 
> > networks. it sells for $1595 for 5 users and comes with www/ftp etc, 
> > but the bit that caught my attention was the fact that it can be used 
> > for leased-line/dialup routing and (if the article is correct) no 
> > tcp/ip support is needed on the local n/w at all !!
> 
> Yep!  A few people tell me that Novell admins love this since it lets
> them keep their networks "pure" - no icky TCP/IP frames on their
> lovely little IPX networks (and, of course, the clients don't need to
> run TCP/IP stacks).
> 
> I think it would definitely be a well-regarded feature for FreeBSD if
> we supported TCP/IP encapsulation like this.  I don't know how much
> work is involved, but..

I do.  I did a product proposal for this type of thing at Novell.  Even
did some preliminary code.  8-).


The biggest pain is setting up the server engine to advertise itself
and respond to "GetNearestServer()" requests of the apropriate type.

You will need a NetWare developer kit for the client API on the
Windows box.

The largest amount of grunt-work is in writing the Winsock-over-IPX
tunnel.  This is not quite traditional tunneling.

Anyone have a full set of client developer red-boxes?


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.