Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:27:56 +0700 (ALMST)
From:      Boris Popov <bp@butya.kz>
To:        "Justin C. Walker" <justin@apple.com>
Cc:        freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Multiple ethernet frames for IPX
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.10.9906160916430.12882-100000@lion.butya.kz>
In-Reply-To: <199906160120.SAA00645@walker3.apple.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, Justin C. Walker wrote:

> > 	Yes, it is really works now. This is first public release of 
> > if_ef driver which extends current functionality of existing ethernet 
> > drivers.
> 
> I have a couple of questions:
> 
> How does this handle the problem of getting a forwarded packet back  
> into the wrapper it needs (e.g., 802.3/SNAP)?

	Packet sended/forwarded to interface. Since frame type
determined from the interface it is not a problem for ether_output()
rotine to select appropriate frame to wrap in.
> 
> Why is this better than, e.g., having stacks register for
> packet-type reception?  I'd think this would perform better than the  
> "virtual device" scheme.  A (minor?) drawback is updating both stack  
> and "driver family support" (e.g., ether_input()) to handle this.

	No, you will also need to rewrite route* procedures. And changes
required to protocol stack(s) aren't "minor" in this case.

--
Boris Popov
http://www.butya.kz/~bp/



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9906160916430.12882-100000>