Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 23:08:32 -0300 (EST) From: Joao Carlos Mendes Luis <jonny@jonny.eng.br> To: justin@apple.com Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Multiple ethernet frames for IPX Message-ID: <199906200208.XAA02886@roma.coe.ufrj.br> In-Reply-To: <199906161602.JAA00643@walker3.apple.com> from "Justin C. Walker" at "Jun 16, 1999 09:02:28 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
#define quoting(Justin C. Walker) // 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? Routing choses interface, interface defines frame. Just think of diferent packet frames as virtual networks, completely isolated from each other. If you need to share traffic, you must use a (one armed) router. // I never bothered to figure out the answers to these questions for // IP (which can be encapsulated in E-2 or 802.3/SNAP). If routing decides to send via E-2 interface, it will receive an E-2 frame, and vice-versa. Note that each frame should have its own subnet, completely independent from each other. // > interface knows about frames. // I guess this is an answer to the question: network numbers // determine encapsulation. Is that true? Yes. Jonny -- João Carlos Mendes Luís jonny@jonny.eng.br Networking Engineer jcml@ieee.org 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?199906200208.XAA02886>