Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!ico!dougm
From: dougm@ico.isc.com (Doug McCallum)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: Little Big Lan ($75 network)
Message-ID: <1990Dec17.184011.7307@ico.isc.com>
Date: 17 Dec 90 18:40:11 GMT
References: <1008.27671B24@weyr.FIDONET.ORG>
Reply-To: dougm@ico.ISC.COM (Doug McCallum)
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Boulder CO
Lines: 24

In article <1008.27671B24@weyr.FIDONET.ORG> Tim.Radbourne@p5.f60.n140.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tim Radbourne) writes:
...
>Like he says... Lantastic didn't worry about the standards 
>and it works quite well.
>
>Lets get rid of the beaurucratic baggage where it is 
>unnecessary.
>

I thought Artisoft had seen the light and were moving to following standards?

In any case, not following either the Ethernet or IEEE specs on an
Ethernet/IEEE802.3 can lead to many, many problems.  Following at least the
Ethernet spec on these LANs ensures coexistence with any other use and adds
no overhead.  The type field is there and ought to be used.  Even following
the 802.3+802.2 specification only adds 3 bytes of overhead and allows
other systems to run their own protocols.  

I've also heard the argument that "that won't ever happen" when pointing out
that standards allow for better coexistence when other protocols are added.
Typically, networks grow faster than anyone expects and other protocols
always get added.  When I first came to ISC, they weren't running TCP/IP.
We now run TCP/IP, Netware, ISO, AppleTalk, and a few others.  Two years
ago no one would have believed it.