Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!apple!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!image.soe.clarkson.edu!news
From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
Subject: Re: packet driver benefits?
Message-ID: <NELSON.89Aug27001450@sun.clarkson.edu>
Date: 27 Aug 89 04:18:25 GMT
References: <9197@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>
Sender: news@sun.soe.clarkson.edu
Reply-To: nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu
Organization: Clarkson University, Postdam NY
Lines: 23
In-reply-to: tksjmi@cs.Buffalo.EDU's message of 26 Aug 89 19:29:34 GMT

In article <9197@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> tksjmi@cs.Buffalo.EDU (JoAnn Illuzzi) writes:

    I don't understand why this happens- I am running packet driver pcip
    binaries (like lpr).  I am also running packet drover ncsa telnet for
    the ibm pc.

    So, should this work?
No.
    If not, why not?
Because you have two protocols that are asking the packet driver for the
same packet types.  Even if you convince the packet driver to forward the
packets to both TCP/IPs, they are both going to try to acknowledge packets,
generate replies, etc.  Bad news.
    Where is the problem?   
What you need (what we *all* need) is a kernel[1]-based TCP/IP for MS-LOSS.

    [1] I call MSDOS.SYS a kernel for identification purposes only.  Please
    do not infer anything about my knowledge of computer science from this.

--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])|(70441.205@compuserve.com)|
       (Russ.Nelson@f360.n260.z1.fidonet.org)|(BH01@GEnie.com :-)