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
