Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU!morgan From: morgan@JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU (RL "Bob" Morgan) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk Subject: Re: ATP2 bridging (was Phase 1 vs. Phase 2) Message-ID: Date: 25 Jan 91 02:52:58 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 33 Robert Elz writes: > my original 1042 packets are going to appear > on that far ethernet in rfc984 format (ie: standard IP over ethernet), > which doesn't sound much like as if the packets are being "bridged", > I'd describe it as "mangled". Well, the justification from the IP world's point of view is in Host Requirements (RFC-1122), which says that IP hosts MAY choose to send and receive RFC-1042 frames on Ethernet, but MUST receive RFC-984 properly. Which is to say, RFC-1042 is doomed to not be used, on Ethernets. > the MTU of FDDI is much larger than ethernet > ... > or these "bridges" start fragmenting packets as they're sent onto > ethernet. I dimly recall hearing that some bridge vendor was proposing to do IP fragmentation in the bridge, which truly boggles the mind. Otherwise, I think the only answer is "the host has to figure out how to do the right thing," ie use the right frame length for the right destination. > lets condemn these bridges to a long and lingering death Or maybe even short and painless, like some wars are supposed to be . . . - RL "Bob" Morgan Networking Systems Stanford -------