Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 13:41:19 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: dennis@etinc.com (dennis) Cc: julian@ref.tfs.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPX Message-ID: <199510102041.NAA11014@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199510101909.PAA01532@etinc.com> from "dennis" at Oct 10, 95 03:09:09 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> It doesn't seem likely that there would be much inter-operability. Our > router product is > embedded in our kernel driver and does RIP and SAP in the kernel (no > daemons). There is an internal > routing table and separate utilities (we haven't hacked any FreeBSD stuff) > that can be used > to display and manage the tables. We use a simple filter (about 3 lines of > code have to be added > to any ethernet driver) that passes packets to our driver. Its designed to > be an autonomous system, > not something to be permanently included in the system. FYI: The NWU (NetWare for UNIX) 4.x uses a similar routing implementation, where routes are retrieved from the kernel rather than stored as temporary bindery objects. You implementation is compatible with the offering of IPX based services, like NVT 1.0. NVT 2.0 (the current release version) runs on top of SPX. Note that an SPX implementation has the capability of running sliding window, but the window size is always negotiated to be one packet because of backward compatability. This would make an SPX implementation more trivial than it would be if you actually needed to allow a negotiated value other than one. 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?199510102041.NAA11014>