Re: netns
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 > -- > 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
Re: netns
> > > > 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. :-) John -- John Hay -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: netns
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-). I can't run -current on my SMP box, because -current changed out of compatability with it (I think KMB and Poul have similar ASUS boxes that have the same problem), but I've been working on setting up a -current system locally, both to bring some patches up to date, and to deal with the SMP initialization issue that's been a thorn in the side of the -smp list. It'd be pretty trivial to deal with the XNS compilation problems, if they are more recent that 4.4, so if it turns out they are, I cn do that pretty easily, once I have a -current box that actually boots without panic'ing. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: netns
> 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. John -- John Hay -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: netns
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. FWIW. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: netns
Why don't they use the netipx code? Surely netware use ipx. > > I believe there are people whi use it in -stabel for netware > connectivity. > I think that not having it would be a killer for them when they try move > up to 5.x. > > On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Erik Greenwald wrote: > > > > > Does anyone use src/sys/netns (xerox networking)? it's currently > > uncompilable, seems to have been so for a while, and sys/conf/NOTES says > > it's provided for "amusement" value, and are only shipped due to > > interest. I wouldn't mind seeing it go away in -current and if someone > > wants it, they can cvs an older version or something... > > John -- John Hay -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: netns
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ju > lian Elischer writes: > > > >I believe there are people whi use it in -stabel for netware > >connectivity. > >I think that not having it would be a killer for them when they try move > >up to 5.x. > > Well, they'd better get somebody to fix it then because if it doesn't > at least show a credible display of functionality when 5.0-R rolls > around I'll lobby hard for axing it. I'll try find some.. > > If you know there are people using it, tell them this is the time > to fix it if they want it to be in 5.0 > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe > Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: netns
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ju lian Elischer writes: > >I believe there are people whi use it in -stabel for netware >connectivity. >I think that not having it would be a killer for them when they try move >up to 5.x. Well, they'd better get somebody to fix it then because if it doesn't at least show a credible display of functionality when 5.0-R rolls around I'll lobby hard for axing it. If you know there are people using it, tell them this is the time to fix it if they want it to be in 5.0 -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: netns
I believe there are people whi use it in -stabel for netware connectivity. I think that not having it would be a killer for them when they try move up to 5.x. On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Erik Greenwald wrote: > > Does anyone use src/sys/netns (xerox networking)? it's currently > uncompilable, seems to have been so for a while, and sys/conf/NOTES says > it's provided for "amusement" value, and are only shipped due to > interest. I wouldn't mind seeing it go away in -current and if someone > wants it, they can cvs an older version or something... > > -- > -Erik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [http://math.smsu.edu/~erik] > > The opinions expressed by me are not necessarily opinions. In all probability, > they are random rambling, and to be ignored. Failure to ignore may result in > severe boredom or confusion. Shake well before opening. Keep Refrigerated. > > 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
Re: netns
Keith Sklower did that work. PORTS? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: netns
In message <20020922163034.GA29873@freya>, Erik Greenwald writes: > >Does anyone use src/sys/netns (xerox networking)? it's currently >uncompilable, seems to have been so for a while, and sys/conf/NOTES says >it's provided for "amusement" value, and are only shipped due to >interest. I wouldn't mind seeing it go away in -current and if someone >wants it, they can cvs an older version or something... I think we can safely axe it. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
