From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jul 15 09:55:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA10204 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 09:55:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA10128 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 09:54:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id JAA03601; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 09:37:13 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199707151637.JAA03601@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: IPX routing? To: babkin@hq.icb.chel.su (Serge A. Babkin) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 09:37:13 -0700 (MST) Cc: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, jhay@mikom.csir.co.za, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199707150926.PAA08078@hq.icb.chel.su> from "Serge A. Babkin" at Jul 15, 97 03:26:57 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 X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > 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.