Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 23:33:06 +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.4.10.9906162320070.17173-100000@lion.butya.kz> In-Reply-To: <199906161602.JAA00643@walker3.apple.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Justin C. Walker wrote: > > In case of IPX protocol you have network numbers as a routing and > > forwarding criteria, and since one frame have only one corresponding > > network number it is easy to select outgoing interface. If host have no > > direct connection to destination network it will use routing entries > > gathered from RIP packets. So, it doesn't matter which frame type > was on > > incoming packet. As a special case consider routing between different > > frame types on a single ethernet segment. > I understand how routing works. What I'm missing is how the > sending host (whether originator or forwarder) decides how to > encapsulate a frame, i.e., in your case, how to chose which virtual > device to use. Is it the case that the network number determines the > encapsulation? Is ARP used, and if so, does the ARP reply dictate > how to encapsulate? I'm playing with IP now (and don't like how arp subroutines create packets) so can spoke only for IPX. And yes, you are right - network number determines outgoing interface and, therefore - encapsulation. -- 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.4.10.9906162320070.17173-100000>