From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Oct 10 13:58:28 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id NAA04108 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 13:58:28 -0700 Received: from etinc.com (etinc-gw.new-york.net [165.254.13.209]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA04097 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 13:58:23 -0700 Received: from trumpet.etnet.com (trumpet.etnet.com [129.45.17.35]) by etinc.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA01799; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 17:07:01 -0400 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 17:07:01 -0400 Message-Id: <199510102107.RAA01799@etinc.com> X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Terry Lambert From: dennis@etinc.com (dennis) Subject: Re: IPX Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk >> 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. > SPX runs over IPX, so why would an IPX router care about or be incompatible with either implementation? db ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Emerging Technologies, Inc. http://www.etinc.com Synchronous Communications Cards and Routers For Discriminating Tastes. 56k to T1 and beyond. Frame Relay, PPP, HDLC, and X.25