Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 24 May 1995 16:59:05 -0400 (EDT)
From:      "Alok K. Dhir" <adhir@iagi.net>
To:        Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com>
Cc:        Brad Midgley <brad@pht.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.org, junkmail@pht.com
Subject:   Re: CAP status in current? 
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSI.3.91.950524165443.7305A-100000@bigdipper.iagi.net>
In-Reply-To: <95May23.165853pdt.49871@crevenia.parc.xerox.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 23 May 1995, Bill Fenner wrote:

> In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.950523141059.5507A-100000@exodus.pht.com> you write:
> >I've been wondering if -current compiles Columbia Appletalk cleanly.
> 
> I was under the impression that netatalk would make more sense, since it puts 
> more of the protocol handling in the kernel.  I haven't looked at this stuff 
> for a while, though...

NetAtalk is definitely the way to go.  CAP is written fom the perspective 
of a Macintosh networking, requiring an in-depth understanding of 
Appletalk/Ethertalk/etc to get it working, whereas NetAtalk is written 
from a TCP/IP networking perspective.  As I understand it, NetAtalk is 
also a faster implementation due at least in part to its being a kernel 
level implementation(instead of needing bpfilter, etc).

Anyone have any ongoing work along these lines?


Alok K. Dhir
Internet Access Group, Inc.
adhir@iagi.net
(301) 652-0484  Fax: (301) 652-0649
http://www.iagi.net




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.3.91.950524165443.7305A-100000>