Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!intercon!amanda@intercon.com From: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Router interoperability Message-ID: <1509@intercon.com> Date: 25 Oct 89 02:49:21 GMT References: <8910241346.AA21092@iapetus.rice.edu> <1989.10.24.16.57.48.Gene.Hastings@boole> Sender: news@intercon.com Reply-To: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation Lines: 22 In article <1989.10.24.16.57.48.Gene.Hastings@boole>, Gene.Hastings@BOOLE.ECE.CMU.EDU writes: > Bear in mind a potential gotcha: Once the router vendors support PPP, there > is still the potential for disagreement about the encapsulation of other > protocols (such as D*CN*T), and some of us need to support multiprotocol > routers. > > Would any of the router vendors like to respond? > > Gene Well, I'm not a router vendor, but I have looked over the draft PPP, and it's got a 16-bit "type" field that is basically the equivalent of the Ethernet type field (same numbers and everything, by some strange coincidence :-)). One of the features of PPP as opposed to SLIP is this very capability to run multiple protocols over a PPP link layer. Unless I have misread the draft RFC, it doesn't leave much room for disagreement... -- Amanda Walker