[geeks] Can I netboot...

[Jonathan C. Patschke]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, der Mouse wrote:

> (a) There is some non-IP stuff involved, notably reverse ARP.  (ARP
> and reverse ARP are not part of IP; they are part of the way IP is
> encapsulated on Ethernet.  IPv4, at least; IPv6 addresses the needs
> ARP and rARP address differently.)

Mmm, right, and I don't think that the networking stack in Windows 95
(or '98 or ME) allows userland programs to construct raw IP packets.  In
fact, I'm not even sure NT 4 could do that.  There was a big screaming
fit from the WinWeenies when Windows got that capability because it had
"no useful purpose" and "would only be used by hackers[sic]".

> (Whether this charge is fair when leveled against Windows 95 I am not
> competent to comment on; I'm just pointing out that `IP is symmetric,
> so "server OS versus "client OS" doesn't matter' is invalid logic.)

Not in the case of what's typically meant in "server" and "client" for
bittybox operating systems.  Many of the other protocols those OSes
implement really -do- differentiate between clients and servers in ways
that would make the entire stack look different.  Excepting the
case of some silly (or not-so, in the case of an embedded
implementation) preprogrammed limit, most-all IP implementations should
be interchageable.

-- 
Jonathan Patschke   )  "someone set us up the IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL."
Elgin, TX          (                                           --jimmy