On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, John Hay wrote:
> > > > > Why don't they use the netipx code? Surely netware use ipx.
> > > >
> > > > IPX is based on XNS. It differs by one significant field. The
> > > > SAP (Service Advertisement Protocol) in IPX comed directly from
> > > > XNS.
> > >
> > > So you are agreeing with me that to use netns to do ipx when we
> > > have netipx does not make sense? :-)
> > >
> > > > FWIW.
> > >
> > > I know, a lot of my time went into netipx, which was derived from
> > > netns. I also did IPXrouted which does SAP too.
> > I was mostly agreeing with Julian, that if people are using it, it
> > shouldn't be orphaned because something moved out from under some
> > otherwise perfectly good code. A lot of people used to do 802.3
> > vs. Ethernet II, as well, and they did it for compatability with
> > legacy systems... so whether it makes technical sense or not, it
> > might make business sense. 8-).
> You can tell them it makes business sense to do a s/AF_NS/AF_IPX/g
> in their code and suddenly they will be able to do even more then
> before, for instance they will be able to do different frame types
> on the same wire and one different wires. The netns code can only
> do one frame type per box, which is a pain if you want to connect
> part 802.3 and part Ethernet II networks. Yes I know because we
> run it like that at work. As a bonus FreeBSD get to maintain one
> piece of code and not two pieces that do almost exactly the same
> thing. Bugs fixed in one place, enhancements made in one place.
> I'm sure it makes business sense. :-)
My original posting was in error..
One of the things I remembered as using XNS actually uses IPX.
> John Hay -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message