From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed May 24 13:59:41 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id NAA24046 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 1995 13:59:41 -0700 Received: from bigdipper.iagi.net (bigdipper.iagi.net [198.6.14.10]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA24030 for ; Wed, 24 May 1995 13:59:34 -0700 Received: (from adhir@localhost) by bigdipper.iagi.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) id QAA09086; Wed, 24 May 1995 16:59:10 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 16:59:05 -0400 (EDT) From: "Alok K. Dhir" To: Bill Fenner cc: Brad Midgley , hackers@FreeBSD.org, junkmail@pht.com Subject: Re: CAP status in current? In-Reply-To: <95May23.165853pdt.49871@crevenia.parc.xerox.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 23 May 1995, Bill Fenner wrote: > In message 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