Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!npd.novell.com!excelan!donp From: donp@na.excelan.com (don provan) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans Subject: Re: What is NDIS? Message-ID: <2603@excelan.COM> Date: 11 Jan 91 20:34:16 GMT References: <1991Jan9.233040.13698@nntp-server.caltech.edu> Sender: news@excelan.COM Reply-To: donp@novell.com (don provan) Distribution: usa Organization: Novell, Inc., San Jose, California Lines: 37 (*sigh*) In article nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu (aka NELSON@CLUTX.BITNET) writes: >NDIS, packet drivers, and ODI all perform the same function. They >serve to hide the difference between network cards, and allow multiple >protocol stacks to access the same card. Technologically, there isn't >much difference between them. I've said this before, but ODI serves to hide the datalink protocol itself from the network protocol. In contrast, packet drivers and NDIS hide the details of the hardware from the network protocol, but the network protocol is still required to create datalink packets appropriate for the media being used. *Technologically*, this makes ODI about as much like packet drivers as it is like the BSD socket interface. On the other hand, i do agree that commercially there's not much difference between them, as the major advantage of all three of these interfaces is the freedom to choose the hardware independently of the network product. This doesn't make ODI better than packet drivers, just different. >ODI drivers are fairly scarce because manufacturers would rather >write dedicated Novell drivers since they're more efficient I'd have to see some references here before i'd believe this. From where i sit, it appears that manufacturers don't have ODI drivers yet because they already *have* dedicated Novell drivers so there's no rush. > (a dedicated driver will always be more >efficient than a general purpose driver). Well, i suppose this is true, but i don't believe the difference in efficiency is necessarily significant. The things that make a driver general purpose just aren't that costly compared to the other aspects of a datalink interface. don provan donp@novell.com