From owner-freebsd-current Fri Jan 30 20:54:52 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA13162 for current-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 20:54:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.119.24.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA13154 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 20:54:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [194.198.43.36]) by ns1.yes.no (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA24791; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 04:54:48 GMT Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) id FAA12456; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 05:54:47 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <19980131055446.35288@follo.net> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 05:54:47 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund To: Greg Lehey Cc: Eivind Eklund , FreeBSD current users Subject: Re: LFS is nuked? References: <19980130234945.43035@klemm.gtn.com> <199801310004.RAA13451@usr05.primenet.com> <199801310108.UAA23804@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <19980131023641.18792@follo.net> <19980131121413.28219@lemis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88e In-Reply-To: <19980131121413.28219@lemis.com>; from Greg Lehey on Sat, Jan 31, 1998 at 12:14:13PM +1030 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG X-To-Unsubscribe: mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org "unsubscribe current" On Sat, Jan 31, 1998 at 12:14:13PM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote: > On Sat, Jan 31, 1998 at 02:36:41AM +0100, Eivind Eklund wrote: > > Hey! I'm probably going to have to either revive X.25 or drop a > > project, as TCP/IP over the ISDN D-channel is supposedly > > implemented encapsulated in X.25. > > Are you sure you're not confusing it with X.75? I'm certain *I* am not confusing it with X.75, yes. As to whether the co-worker I got the information off is confused; that is another matter. > I've never heard of X.25 being used at that level. And though X.75 > encapsulation is available for ISDN, it's by no means the preferred > method. Raw HDLC is much more efficient. The problem is that there are products (from Ascend, IIRC) that already support TCP/IP encapsulated in X.25 over the ISDN D channel. What is efficient is not too important here; what's important is that I'd like to communicate with their equipment. Eivind.