I'm talking about the core protocol... not the "extentions" that some have undertaken upon themself's to do. You "can" route IPX/SPX by encapusulating it in an ip wrapper and doing some stuff here and there...
btw.. I have novell certs and I like Novell products a LOT better than anything put out by Microsoft. A file server shouldn't have little cutsie graphics and everything else. Authentication from the network (ms's AD... aka LDAP wraped in kerbose auth) should not be used for local system authentication. What happens when a server's AD goes to crap... you can't log in and your reinstalling the NOS. Novell... UNIX.. etc... you just boot into a nice single user mode/recovery mode/whatever and you can have it up and running within a few min most of the time... anyway.. that's way off topic... -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sam Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 21:43 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Here I come from ETSI land On Sat, 12 Jul 2003, Shawn Mitchell wrote: > Cisco has it right.. heck, even Sony has it right... TCP/IP is a ROUTED > protocol... IPX/SPX has to be a BRIDGED protocol... NetBEUI, Netbios, etc, > etc, etc have to be a bridged protocol... Sorry...had to jump in here as off-topic as it is... :) IPX/SPX does *not* have to be bridged. Further, in lab tests it far outperformed ip in a Windows environment vs ipx in a Novell environment. Sam, Novell/NDS bigot. :) The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) Archives: http://archives.part-15.org The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) Archives: http://archives.part-15.org
